Deliberative democracy

Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision-making. It often shows characteristics of both consensus decision-making and majority rule. Deliberative democracy differs from traditional democratic theory in that authentic deliberation, not mere voting, is the primary source of legitimacy for the law that is produced. Deliberative democracy is related to consultative democracy, in which public consultation with citizens is central to democratic processes.

Deliberative democracy can be practiced by decision-makers in both representative democracies and direct democracies. Use of the term may vary: while some practitioners and theorists use deliberative democracy to describe elected bodies whose members propose and enact legislation, Hélène Landemore and others use deliberative democracy to refer to decision-making by randomly selected lay citizens each with equal power.

Deliberative democracy has a long history of practice and theory, which can be traced back to ancient times. It received academic attention in the 1990s and implementations since 2010. Joseph M. Bessette has been credited with coining the term in his 1980 work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government.

Overview

Deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of views expressed by voting. Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtains through economic wealth or the support of interest groups.

Deliberative democracy can be practiced by decision-makers in both representative democracies and direct democracies. In elitist deliberative democracy, principles of deliberative democracy apply to elite democratic decision-making bodies, such as legislatures and courts; in populist deliberative democracy, principles of deliberative democracy apply to groups of lay citizens who are directly empowered to make decisions. Populist deliberative democracy can use deliberation among a group of lay citizens to distill an authentic public opinion about societal issues for other decision-makers to consider, such as in a deliberative opinion poll. Populist deliberative democracy may also result directly in binding law. If political decisions are made by deliberation but not by the people themselves or their elected representatives, then there is no democratic element; this deliberative process is called elite deliberation.

The roots of deliberative democracy can be traced back to Aristotle and his notion of politics. The German philosopher Jürgen Habermas' work on communicative rationality and the public sphere is often identified as a major work in this area.

James Fearon and Portia Pedro believe deliberative processes most often generate ideal conditions of impartiality, rationality and knowledge of the relevant facts, resulting in more morally correct outcomes. Former diplomat Carne Ross contends that the processes are more civil, collaborative, and evidence-based than the debates in traditional town hall meetings or in internet forums if citizens know their debates will impact society. Some fear the influence of a skilled orator.

Deliberative democracy proponents typically prioritize decision-making quality over quantity by limiting decision-makers to a small group that is given the time and resources to focus on one issue. John Burnheim critiques traditional representative democracy as requiring citizens to vote for a candidate who represents a large package of policies and preferences bundled together, much of which a voter might not want. He argues that this does not translate voter preferences as carefully as deliberative groups do, if they are given the time and the ability to focus on one issue.

Characteristics

Fishkin's model of deliberation

James Fishkin, who designed practical implementations of deliberative democracy through deliberative polling in various countries, described five characteristics essential for legitimate deliberation:

  • Information: The extent to which participants are given access to reasonably accurate information that they believe to be relevant to the issue;
  • Substantive balance: The extent to which arguments offered by one side or from one perspective are answered by considerations offered by those who hold other perspectives;
  • Diversity: The extent to which the major positions in the public are represented by participants in the discussion;
  • Conscientiousness: The extent to which participants sincerely weigh the merits of the arguments; and
  • Equal consideration: The extent to which arguments offered by all participants are considered on the merits regardless of which participants offer them.

Studies by Fishkin and others have concluded that deliberative democracy tends to produce outcomes which are superior to those in other forms of democracy. Outcomes in their research include less partisanship and more sympathy with opposing views; more respect for evidence-based reasoning rather than opinion; a greater commitment to the decisions taken by those involved; and a greater chance for widely shared consensus to emerge, thus promoting social cohesion between people from different backgrounds. Fishkin cites extensive empirical support for the increase in public spiritedness that is often caused by participation in deliberation, and says theoretical support can be traced back to foundational democratic thinkers such as John Stuart Mill and Alexis de Tocqueville.

Fiskin along with constitutional scholar Bruce Ackerman have proposed instituting a national Deliberation Day holiday two weeks before Presidential elections where citizens would gather to debate pertinent issues.

Cohen's outline

Joshua Cohen, a student of John Rawls, argued that the five main features of deliberative democracy include:

  1. An ongoing independent association with expected continuation.
  2. The citizens in the democracy structure their institutions such that deliberation is the deciding factor in the creation of the institutions and the institutions allow deliberation to continue.
  3. A commitment to the respect of a pluralism of values and aims within the polity.
  4. The citizens consider deliberative procedure as the source of legitimacy, and prefer the causal history of legitimation for each law to be transparent and easily traceable to the deliberative process.
  5. Each member recognizes and respects other members' deliberative capacity.

Cohen presents deliberative democracy as more than a theory of legitimacy, and forms a body of substantive rights around it based on achieving "ideal deliberation":

  1. It is free in two ways:
    1. The participants consider themselves bound solely by the results and preconditions of the deliberation. They are free from any authority of prior norms or requirements.
    2. The participants suppose that they can act on the decision made; the deliberative process is a sufficient reason to comply with the decision reached.
  2. Parties to deliberation are required to state reasons for their proposals, and proposals are accepted or rejected based on the reasons given, as the content of the very deliberation taking place.
  3. Participants are equal in two ways:
    1. Formal: anyone can put forth proposals, criticize, and support measures. There is no substantive hierarchy.
    2. Substantive: The participants are not limited or bound by certain distributions of power, resources, or pre-existing norms. "The participants…do not regard themselves as bound by the existing system of rights, except insofar as that system establishes the framework of free deliberation among equals."
  4. Deliberation aims at a rationally motivated consensus: it aims to find reasons acceptable to all who are committed to such a system of decision-making. When consensus or something near enough is not possible, majoritarian decision making is used.

In Democracy and Liberty, an essay published in 1998, Cohen updated his idea of pluralism to "reasonable pluralism" – the acceptance of different, incompatible worldviews and the importance of good faith deliberative efforts to ensure that as far as possible the holders of these views can live together on terms acceptable to all.

Gutmann and Thompson's model

Amy Gutmann and Dennis F. Thompson's definition captures the elements that are found in most conceptions of deliberative democracy. They define it as "a form of government in which free and equal citizens and their representatives justify decisions in a process in which they give one another reasons that are mutually acceptable and generally accessible, with the aim of reaching decisions that are binding on all at present but open to challenge in the future".

They state that deliberative democracy has four requirements, which refer to the kind of reasons that citizens and their representatives are expected to give to one another:

  1. Reciprocal. The reasons should be acceptable to free and equal persons seeking fair terms of cooperation.
  2. Accessible. The reasons must be given in public and the content must be understandable to the relevant audience.
  3. Binding. The reason-giving process leads to a decision or law that is enforced for some period of time. The participants do not deliberate just for the sake of deliberation or for individual enlightenment.
  4. Dynamic or Provisional. The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds, and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws.

Standards of good deliberation – from first to second generation (Bächtiger et al., 2018)

For Bächtiger, Dryzek, Mansbridge and Warren, the ideal standards of "good deliberation" which deliberative democracy should strive towards have changed:

Standards for "good deliberation"
First generation Second generation
Respect Unchallenged, unrevised
Absence of power Unchallenged, unrevised
Equality Inclusion, mutual respect, equal communicative freedom, equal opportunity for influence
Reasons Relevant considerations
Aim at consensus Aim at both consensus and clarifying conflict
Common good orientation Orientation to both common good and self-interest constrained by fairness
Publicity Publicity in many conditions, but not all (e.g. in negotiations when representatives can be trusted)
Accountability Accountability to constituents when elected, to other participants and citizens when not elected
Sincerity Sincerity in matters of importance; allowable insincerity in greetings, compliments, and other communications intended to increase sociality

History

Early examples

Consensus-based decision making similar to deliberative democracy has been found in different degrees and variations throughout the world going back millennia. The most discussed early example of deliberative democracy arose in Greece as Athenian democracy during the sixth century BC. Athenian democracy was both deliberative and largely direct: some decisions were made by representatives but most were made by "the people" directly. Athenian democracy came to an end in 322 BC. Even some 18th century leaders advocating for representative democracy mention the importance of deliberation among elected representatives.

Recent scholarship

Call for the establishment of deliberative democracy seen at the Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear

The deliberative element of democracy was not widely studied by academics until the late 20th century. According to Professor Stephen Tierney, perhaps the earliest notable example of academic interest in the deliberative aspects of democracy occurred in John Rawls 1971 work A Theory of Justice. Joseph M. Bessette has been credited with coining the term "deliberative democracy" in his 1980 work Deliberative Democracy: The Majority Principle in Republican Government, and went on to elaborate and defend the notion in "The Mild Voice of Reason" (1994). In the 1990s, deliberative democracy began to attract substantial attention from political scientists. According to Professor John Dryzek, early work on deliberative democracy was part of efforts to develop a theory of democratic legitimacy. Theorists such as Carne Ross advocate deliberative democracy as a complete alternative to representative democracy. The more common view, held by contributors such as James Fishkin, is that direct deliberative democracy can be complementary to traditional representative democracy. Others contributing to the notion of deliberative democracy include Carlos Nino, Jon Elster, Roberto Gargarella, John Gastil, Jürgen Habermas, David Held, Joshua Cohen, Amy Gutmann, Noëlle McAfee, Rense Bos, Jane Mansbridge, Jose Luis Marti, Dennis Thompson, Benny Hjern, Hal Koch, Seyla Benhabib, Ethan Leib, Charles Sabel, Jeffrey K. Tulis, David Estlund, Mariah Zeisberg, Jeffrey L. McNairn, Iris Marion Young, Robert B. Talisse, and Hélène Landemore.[citation needed]

Although political theorists took the lead in the study of deliberative democracy, political scientists have in recent years begun to investigate its processes. One of the main challenges currently is to discover more about the actual conditions under which the ideals of deliberative democracy are more or less likely to be realized.

Drawing on the work of Hannah Arendt, Shmuel Lederman laments the fact that "deliberation and agonism have become almost two different schools of thought" that are discussed as "mutually exclusive conceptions of politics" as seen in the works of Chantal Mouffe, Ernesto Laclau, and William E. Connolly. Giuseppe Ballacci argues that agonism and deliberation are not only compatible but mutually dependent: "a properly understood agonism requires the use of deliberative skills but also that even a strongly deliberative politics could not be completely exempt from some of the consequences of agonism".

Most recently, scholarship has focused on the emergence of a 'systemic approach' to the study of deliberation. This suggests that the deliberative capacity of a democratic system needs to be understood through the interconnection of the variety of sites of deliberation which exist, rather than any single setting. Some studies have conducted experiments to examine how deliberative democracy addresses the problems of sustainability and underrepresentation of future generations. Although not always the case, participation in deliberation has been found to shift participants' opinions in favour of environmental positions.

Platforms and algorithms

Aviv Ovadya also argues for implementing bridging-based algorithms in major platforms by empowering deliberative groups that are representative of the platform's users to control the design and implementation of the algorithm. He argues this would reduce sensationalism, political polarization and democratic backsliding. Jamie Susskind likewise calls for deliberative groups to make these kind of decisions. Meta commissioned a representative deliberative process in 2022 to advise the company on how to deal with climate misinformation on its platforms.

Modern examples

The OECD documented hundreds of examples and finds their use increasing since 2010. For example, a representative sample of 2500 lay citizens used a 'Citizens' congress' to coalesce around a plan on how to rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Deliberation at scale

Deliberative theories were often developed with face-to-face discussion in mind, which works well in a jury room or a town meeting but becomes difficult when the relevant public numbers in the thousands or millions. Much theoretical and practical work since the 1990s has addressed how deliberation can be made to work among, or on behalf of, a large number of people.

Challenges

Time, numbers and distance. Goodin argues that the ideal of every affected person exchanging reasons with every other is workable in small societies but not in large ones, because the time needed for everyone to speak and be heard grows with the number of participants, and participants are dispersed geographically. After reviewing attempts to overcome these constraints, he proposes shifting much of the deliberative work inside each citizen's head, with people reflecting on the perspectives of absent others rather than conversing with them directly.

The democratic trilemma. Fishkin: ch. 2  describes a "trilemma" between three democratic values: political equality, mass participation and deliberation. Institutions that achieve any two of them tend to sacrifice the third. A referendum gives everyone an equal vote but involves little deliberation; a deliberating random sample is equal and deliberative but involves only a few hundred people; and open, self-selected forums can be both deliberative and participatory, but their participants are unrepresentative of the wider public.

Self-selection. In open processes the people who choose to take part tend to differ systematically from the rest of the population. Even when organizers recruit by lottery, the pool of people who accept an invitation over-represents some groups, such as university graduates, so that meeting demographic quotas forces some volunteers to be selected with much lower probability than others. A study of the online forum that accompanied Iceland's 2011 constitution-drafting process found that the forum was responsive and mostly on topic, but that participation was uneven and the contributors formed a self-selected, relatively homogeneous group.

Group polarization. Sunstein argues that when members of a group of like-minded people deliberate together, they typically end up holding a more extreme version of the position the group tended towards beforehand. He presents this as a danger for deliberative designs in which discussion takes place among like-minded people, such as within isolated enclaves.

Information overload. Open online platforms allow mass participation, but Klein notes that they tend to generate large volumes of disorganized, redundant contributions of uneven quality, which no single participant can read in full. In large deliberations it also becomes hard to direct participants' attention to the issues where their input is most needed.

Connecting small forums to the wider public. Methods that deliberate in small groups raise the question of why the rest of the public should accept their conclusions. Lafont argues that giving binding power to randomly selected mini-publics would ask citizens to defer blindly to the judgment of a few, a "shortcut" that bypasses the deliberation of the public at large.

Methods

Random selection and mini-publics

The most widespread response to the trilemma is to deliberate on behalf of the public rather than with all of it. Fung calls such deliberately constructed forums "minipublics" and classifies the design choices they involve, including how participants are selected and recruited, what they discuss, how they deliberate, and how much power they have. Recruiting participants by sortition lets a group of a few hundred people approximate the views of the whole population, preserving political equality without requiring everyone to take part.: ch. 2 

To counter self-selection in the pool of volunteers, Flanigan, Gölz, Gupta, Hennig and Procaccia developed a selection algorithm that satisfies demographic quotas while making the selection probabilities of all volunteers as equal as possible. On ten real datasets it gave the least-likely volunteers a substantially higher chance of selection than the algorithm previously in use, and by mid-2021 the Sortition Foundation alone had used it to select more than 40 panels.

Several countries have used randomly selected assemblies on major national questions. In Ireland, the Citizens' Assembly of 2016–18 followed the Convention on the Constitution of 2012–14, and the two bodies played a significant role in the constitutional referendums on same-sex marriage (2015) and abortion (2018). In France, the Citizens' Convention for Climate of 2019–20 was commissioned to bring together 150 randomly chosen citizens. They were randomly assigned to five thematic working groups (housing, work and production, transport, food, and consumption) whose proposals were then voted on in plenary, and the convention approved 149 measures. An assessment by participant observers found that the steering and expert bodies strongly framed the agenda, although the citizens kept responsibility for the final output.

Small facilitated groups and plenary sessions

Large deliberative events commonly divide participants into many small groups, each led by a moderator, and alternate these with plenary sessions. In the Deliberative Poll "America in One Room", held in Dallas in September 2019, a national random sample of 526 registered voters was split into moderated groups of about 13 people. Questions agreed on in the small groups were put to balanced panels of experts in plenary sessions. Participants' policy attitudes on many of the most polarized issues moved substantially closer across party lines.

Facilitation also addresses the risk of group polarization. In an experiment on attitudes toward the Swedish language in Finland, Strandberg, Himmelroos and Grönlund placed participants in like-minded groups and found that free discussion polarized them, whereas groups that followed deliberative rules under a facilitator did not; the result held both face-to-face and online.

The "21st Century Town Meeting" format developed by AmericaSpeaks combined small-group discussion with electronic aggregation. At "Listening to the City", held in New York in July 2002 to discuss plans for rebuilding the World Trade Center site, more than 4,500 people sat at tables of 10 to 12, each with a trained facilitator, and used wireless keypads to vote on questions whose results were displayed immediately on large screens; several hundred more took part online.

Linking mini-publics to wider institutions

A further question is how the conclusions of a mini-public reach the wider political system. Goodin and Dryzek list several ways this can happen, including directly shaping policy, informing public debate, testing proposals before they are adopted, legitimating policies, and enabling popular oversight of officials. Ireland's practice of putting assembly recommendations to a national referendum is one way of giving the whole electorate the final say.

The German-speaking Community of Belgium has built such a link into its parliamentary process. A standing Citizens' Council chosen by lot sets the agenda and convenes Citizens' Assemblies, also chosen by lot, on topics of its choice. Their recommendations are discussed in a joint committee with members of parliament and the responsible minister, who must state whether and how each recommendation will be implemented and justify any rejection.

Online platforms

Online tools reduce the cost of bringing many small groups together and can automate parts of the facilitator's role. The Stanford Online Deliberation Platform runs video-based small-group discussions without human moderators: it manages a speaking queue, prompts quieter participants to speak, flags uncivil language and moves each group through the agenda. In a study on climate policy, 962 participants deliberated in 104 groups of about ten people; participants shifted on most issues, and the shifts crossed party lines. The same platform hosted the Meta Community Forum, a Deliberative Poll on harassment in virtual-reality spaces, in which more than 6,300 people from 32 countries deliberated in 23 languages.

Other tools forgo conversation in small groups and instead structure the contributions of a very large crowd. In Pol.is, participants submit short statements and react to those of others; the system maps the resulting opinion space, identifies groups of participants with similar views, and highlights statements that win support across groups. Its developers report that this design helps surface points of consensus and discourages trolling. Pol.is has been used in vTaiwan, an open consultation process launched in Taiwan in 2014 that combines online and offline deliberation to reach rough consensus on digital legislation. Hsiao, Lin, Tang, Narayanan and Sarahe describe its use in drafting regulations for the ride-hailing service Uber. Argument-mapping systems such as the MIT Deliberatorium take a related approach, organizing contributions into a tree of issues, ideas and arguments, and Klein proposes metrics that direct participants' attention to the parts of the map where their input is most needed.

In Iceland, a Constitutional Council of 25 members drafted a new constitution in 2011 while posting its work on social media and inviting comments from the public, receiving several thousand. In a consultative referendum in 2012, about two-thirds of voters supported using the draft as the basis for a new constitution, but Parliament did not adopt it.

AI-assisted mediation

Researchers have also experimented with using large language models to perform the mediator's task of summarizing views and drafting statements that a group can endorse. In a study published in Science in 2024, an AI system called Habermas Machine (named after Jürgen Habermas) took participants' individual opinions and critiques and iteratively drafted group statements on contested political questions. Across experiments with 5,734 participants, the AI-generated statements were rated as more informative, clearer and less biased than those written by human mediators; participants' views tended to converge after deliberation, and the most successful statements incorporated minority perspectives. The results were replicated in a virtual citizens' assembly drawn from a demographically representative sample of the UK population.


See also

References

  1. 1 2 Elster 1998, Introduction (Elster offers a summary of the various common definitions that academics use for the term.).
  2. ↑ Landemore, Hélène (Summer 2017). "Deliberative Democracy as Open, Not (Just) Representative Democracy". Dædalus. 146 (3): 51–63.
  3. 1 2 Folami, Akilah N. (Winter 2013). "Using the Press Clause to Amplify Civic Discourse beyond Mere Opinion Sharing" (PDF). Temple Law Review. Archived from the original (PDF) on 23 October 2014. Retrieved 23 October 2014.
  4. ↑ Habermans, Jürgen (1997). Bohman, James; Rehg, William (eds.). Deliberative democracy: essays on reason and politics (PDF). MIT Press. p. 41. ISBN 0-262-02434-9. Archived (PDF) from the original on 1 July 2015.
  5. 1 2 3 Leib, Ethan (1997). Deliberative Democracy in America. p. 1.
  6. 1 2 3 Bächtiger, André; Dryzek, John S.; Mansbridge, Jane J.; Warren, Mark, eds. (2018). The Oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (First ed.). Oxford. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-19-180969-9. OCLC 1057358164.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  7. ↑ Threlkeld, Simon. "A Blueprint for Democratic Law-making: Give Citizen Juries the Final Say." Social Policy, Summer, 1998, pp. 5–9.
  8. 1 2 Fishkin 2011, Chapters 2 & 3.
  9. ↑ Fishkin, James S. (2009). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 70. ISBN 9780199572106.
  10. ↑ For a brief overview of the roots and different streams of deliberative democracy, see Ercan, S.A. (2014) 'Deliberative democracy', in: D. Phillips (ed.), Encyclopedia of educational theory and philosophy. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, pp. 214–216 http://www.sagepub.com/books/Book238016
  11. ↑ Elster 1998, Chapter 2 (essay by Fearon).
  12. ↑ Nino 1996.
  13. ↑ Pedro, Portia (1 February 2010). "Note, Making Ballot Initiatives Work: Some Assembly Required". Harvard Law Review. 123 (4): 970–972.
  14. 1 2 3 4 Ross 2011, Chapter 3.
  15. ↑ Elster 1998, p. 1.
  16. ↑ Dryzek 2010, p. 66.
  17. ↑ Dryzek, John S.; Bächtiger, André; Chambers, Simone; Cohen, Joshua; Druckman, James N.; Felicetti, Andrea; Fishkin, James S.; Farrell, David M.; Fung, Archon; Gutmann, Amy; Landemore, Hélène; Mansbridge, Jane; Marien, Sofie; Neblo, Michael A.; Niemeyer, Simon; Setälä, Maija; Slothuus, Rune; Suiter, Jane; Thompson, Dennis; Warren, Mark E. (2019). "The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation". Science. 363 (6432): 1144–1146. Bibcode:2019Sci...363.1144D. doi:10.1126/science.aaw2694. hdl:11384/82884. PMID 30872504. S2CID 78092206.
  18. ↑ Burnheim, John (2006). "3". Is democracy possible? the alternative to electoral democracy. Sydney: Sydney University Press. ISBN 978-1-920898-42-7.
  19. ↑ Fishkin, James S. (2009). When the People speak. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 160f. ISBN 978-0-19-957210-6.
  20. ↑ Elster 1998, Chapter 5.
  21. ↑ Susan C. Strokes in her critical essay Pathologies of Deliberation (Chapter 5 of Elster 1998) concedes there that a majority of academics interested agree with this view.
  22. ↑ Fishkin 2011, p. 103.
  23. ↑ See also Chapter 5 of Fishkin (2011), which gives detailed citations to the empirical work. The specific Mill work cited is Considerations on Representative Government (1861), and the specific Tocqueville work cited is Democracy in America (1835).
  24. ↑ Mercier, Hugo; Dan, Sperber (2017). The Enigma of Reason. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. p. 310. ISBN 978-0-674-36830-9.
  25. 1 2 "Ch 2: Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy". The Good Polity: Normative Analysis of the State. Alan P. Hamlin, Philip Pettit. Oxford, UK: B. Blackwell. 1989. pp. 17–34. ISBN 0-631-15804-9. OCLC 18321533.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  26. ↑ Elster 1998, Chapter 8 (essay by Cohen).
  27. ↑ Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2004). Why Deliberative Democracy? pp. 3–7.
  28. ↑ Priestland, David (23 October 2021). "The Dawn of Everything by David Graeber and David Wengrow review – inequality is not the price of civilisation". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 10 July 2023.
  29. ↑ Burke 1854, pp. 446–448.
  30. ↑ Elster 1998, Chapter 1.
  31. ↑ Elster 1998, Chapter 10.
  32. ↑ Constitutional referendums: a theoretical enquiry (2009) Archived 25 April 2012 at the Wayback Machine by Prof Stephen Tierney (see esp. ft note 67)
  33. 1 2 Dryzek 2010, p. 6.
  34. ↑ Dryzek 2010, p. 21.
  35. ↑ Koch, Hal (2023). What Is Democracy?. Translated by Tam McTurk. Copenhagen: Gyldendal. ISBN 978-87-02-40093-9. Wikidata Q140402796.
  36. ↑ Thompson, Dennis F (2008). "Deliberative Democratic Theory and Empirical Political Science," Annual Review of Political Science 11: 497–520. ISBN 978-0824333119
  37. ↑ Lederman, Shmuel (September 2014). "Agonism and Deliberation in Arendt". Constellations. 21 (3): 335. doi:10.1111/1467-8675.12096.
  38. ↑ Mouffe, Chantal (2013). Chantal Mouffe: hegemony, radical democracy, and the political. London: Routledge. ISBN 9780415825221.
  39. ↑ Ballacci, Giuseppe (1 December 2019). "Deliberative Agonism and Agonistic Deliberation in Hannah Arendt". Theoria. 66 (161): 20. doi:10.3167/th.2019.6616101. S2CID 213045202.
  40. ↑ Owen, D. And Smith, G. (2015). "Survey article: Deliberation, democracy, and the systemic turn." "Journal of Political Philosophy" 23.2: 213–234
  41. ↑ Koirala, P. Timilsina, R. R., Kotani, K. (2021). "Experiment article: Deliberative forms of democracy and intergenerational sustainability dilemma." "Sustainability" 13.13: 7377
  42. ↑ Fishkin 2011, p. x.
  43. ↑ Smith 2003, Chapter 4.
  44. ↑ "EuroPolis proves that debate does change European citizens' attitudes". EuroPolis. 3 June 2009. Archived from the original on 17 March 2012. Retrieved 14 January 2012.
  45. ↑ Ovadya, Aviv (17 May 2022). "Bridging-Based Ranking". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard University. pp. 21–23. Retrieved 17 July 2024.
  46. ↑ Ovadya, Aviv (17 May 2022). "Bridging-Based Ranking". Belfer Center at Harvard University. pp. 1–3, 7, 10. Retrieved 17 July 2024.
  47. ↑ Arthur, Charles (15 June 2022). "The Digital Republic by Jamie Susskind review – how to tame big tech". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 18 July 2024.
  48. ↑ Newton, Casey (21 September 2022). "Facebook is experimenting with letting users help write speech rules". The Verge. Retrieved 18 July 2024. For its experiment, Meta and BIT worked to find about 250 people who were broadly representative of the Facebook user base. They brought them together virtually across two weekends to educate them about climate issues and platform policies, and offered them access to outside experts (on both climate and speech issues) and Facebook employees. At the end of the process, Facebook offered the group a variety of possible solutions to problematic climate information, and the group deliberated and voted on their preferred outcomes.
  49. ↑ Česnulaitytė, Ieva (2020). "Chapter 3: Key Trends". Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. OECD. ISBN 9789264563186.
  50. ↑ Mejia, Mauricio (15 December 2023). "2023 Trends in Deliberative Democracy: OECD Database Update". Participo. Retrieved 12 June 2024.
  51. ↑ Wilson, Patricia (16 December 2008). "Deliberative Planning for Disaster Recovery: Remembering New Orleans". Journal of Deliberative Democracy.
  52. ↑ Goodin, Robert (2000). "Democratic Deliberation Within". Philosophy & Public Affairs. 29 (1): 81–109.
  53. 1 2 Fishkin, James (2009). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-957210-6.
  54. 1 2 Flanigan, Bailey; Gölz, Paul; Gupta, Anupam; Hennig, Brett; Procaccia, Ariel (2021). "Fair algorithms for selecting citizens' assemblies". Nature. 596 (7873): 548–552.
  55. 1 2 Popescu, Delia; Loveland, Matthew (2022). "Judging Deliberation: An Assessment of the Crowdsourced Icelandic Constitutional Project". Journal of Deliberative Democracy. 18 (1).
  56. ↑ Sunstein, Cass (2002). "The Law of Group Polarization". Journal of Political Philosophy. 10 (2): 175–195.
  57. 1 2 Klein, Mark (2012). "Enabling Large-Scale Deliberation Using Attention-Mediation Metrics". Computer Supported Cooperative Work. 21: 449–473.
  58. ↑ Lafont, Cristina (2019). Democracy without Shortcuts: A Participatory Conception of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-884818-9.
  59. ↑ Fung, Archon (2003). "Survey Article: Recipes for Public Spheres: Eight Institutional Design Choices and Their Consequences". Journal of Political Philosophy. 11 (3): 338–367.
  60. 1 2 Farrell, David; Suiter, Jane; Harris, Clodagh (2019). "'Systematizing' constitutional deliberation: the 2016–18 citizens' assembly in Ireland". Irish Political Studies. 34 (1): 113–123.
  61. ↑ Giraudet, Louis-Gaëtan; Apouey, Bénédicte; Arab, Hazem; Baeckelandt, Simon; Bégout, Philippe; Berghmans, Nicolas; Blanc, Nathalie; Boulin, Jean-Yves; Buge, Eric; Courant, Dimitri; Dahan, Amy; Fabre, Adrien; Fourniau, Jean-Michel; Gaborit, Maxime; Granchamp, Laurence; Guillemot, Hélène; Jeanpierre, Laurent; Landemore, Hélène; Laslier, Jean-François; Macé, Antonin; Mellier, Claire; Mounier, Sylvain; Pénigaud, Théophile; Póvoas, Ana; Rafidinarivo, Christiane; Reber, Bernard; Rozencwajg, Romane; Stamenkovic, Philippe; Tilikete, Selma; Tournus, Solène (2022). ""Co-construction" in deliberative democracy: lessons from the French Citizens' Convention for Climate". Humanities and Social Sciences Communications. 9.
  62. ↑ Fishkin, James; Siu, Alice; Diamond, Larry; Bradburn, Norman (2021). "Is Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization? Reflections on "America in One Room"". American Political Science Review. 115 (4): 1464–1481.
  63. ↑ Strandberg, Kim; Himmelroos, Staffan; Grönlund, Kimmo (2019). "Do discussions in like-minded groups necessarily lead to more extreme opinions? Deliberative democracy and group polarization". International Political Science Review. 40 (1): 41–57.
  64. ↑ "Listening to the City". Participedia. Retrieved 2 November 2026.
  65. ↑ Goodin, Robert; Dryzek, John (2006). "Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics". Politics & Society. 34 (2): 219–244.
  66. ↑ Niessen, Christoph; Reuchamps, Min (2022). "Institutionalising Citizen Deliberation in Parliament: The Permanent Citizens' Dialogue in the German-speaking Community of Belgium". Parliamentary Affairs. 75 (1): 135–153.
  67. ↑ Fishkin, James; Bolotnyy, Valentin; Lerner, Joshua; Siu, Alice; Bradburn, Norman (2025). "Scaling Dialogue for Democracy: Can Automated Deliberation Create More Deliberative Voters?". Perspectives on Politics. 23 (2): 434–451.
  68. ↑ Sulots, Nora (22 June 2023). "Results of First Global Deliberative Poll Announced by Stanford's Deliberative Democracy Lab". Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, Stanford University.
  69. ↑ Small, Christopher; Bjorkegren, Michael; Erkkilä, Timo; Shaw, Lynette; Megill, Colin (2021). "Polis: Scaling Deliberation by Mapping High Dimensional Opinion Spaces". Recerca. Revista de Pensament i Anàlisi. 26 (2).
  70. ↑ Hsiao, Yu-Tang; Lin, Shu-Yang; Tang, Audrey; Narayanan, Darshana; Sarahe, Claudina (4 July 2018). "vTaiwan: An Empirical Study of Open Consultation Process in Taiwan". SocArXiv.
  71. ↑ Tessler, Michael Henry; Bakker, Michiel; Jarrett, Daniel; Sheahan, Hannah; Chadwick, Martin; Koster, Raphael; Evans, Georgina; Campbell-Gillingham, Lucy; Collins, Teddy; Parkes, David; Botvinick, Matthew; Summerfield, Christopher (2024). "AI can help humans find common ground in democratic deliberation". Science. 386 (6719).

Sources

Further reading