For example:

Does Hungary fulfill the requirements of democracy given by the facts on the new voting system?

There's no definition of "democracy" given in the question, and in politics "Democracy" has a nearly impossibly broad and vague meaning, which means the question is effectively either unanswerable due to lack of precise definition; or trivially answerable if you accept the widest possible most common definition (any system where large part of the populace has a say in governance is "democracy").


I am hesitant to put down a blanket ruling saying the inclusion of a broad term inherently makes a question too broad. Asking "what is required to match The term democracy?" is very broad- but there are a number of necessary but insufficient criteria, any of which would disqualify the subject X under test. As such, the question is answerable.

The thing that gives me pause is that the question format as phrased smells like an opinion. This is how one starts a rant. Over on C.SE I'd be ready to hit "primarily opinion based," and be done with it for other reasons.

The actual linked question however avoids the typical downfall. It stays very neutral and is asking strictly if a necessary but insufficient criteria has been breached. Had it moved into a rant, I would have closed.

I say, no blanket prohibition, but it is definitely a bad question smell.

It is still covered by "questions seek answers, not catharsis." If you're goal is to convince rather than learn, your question is off topic.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .