Building a Better Referendum: Linking Mini-Publics and Mass Publics in Popular Votes

Spencer McKay
{"title":"Building a Better Referendum: Linking Mini-Publics and Mass Publics in Popular Votes","authors":"Spencer McKay","doi":"10.16997/JDD.319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Popular votes and mini-publics are both increasingly implemented as elected officials seek to build legitimacy for decisions, although these democratic innovations suffer from their own democratic deficits. Popular votes often do not live up to deliberative ideals while mini-publics may be limited in their capacities for inclusion and decision-making. Pairing these two devices can improve deliberation in referendum campaigns, while tying mini-publics to a clear and inclusive process for decision-making. Empirical studies of this strategy have found both successes and shortcomings. Little attention has been given to the possibility that the success of mini-publics in influencing public opinion is determined, in part, by the underlying design of the popular vote process. I outline how multi-stage popular votes could institutionalize an iterated dialogue between the micro-level mini-public and the mass, voting public to produce distinct democratic benefits. This serves as a model of how a systems approach to democratic theory can guide institutional design to address democratic functions of empowered inclusion, collective agenda and will formation, and collective decision-making.","PeriodicalId":147188,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Deliberation","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Deliberation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16997/JDD.319","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Popular votes and mini-publics are both increasingly implemented as elected officials seek to build legitimacy for decisions, although these democratic innovations suffer from their own democratic deficits. Popular votes often do not live up to deliberative ideals while mini-publics may be limited in their capacities for inclusion and decision-making. Pairing these two devices can improve deliberation in referendum campaigns, while tying mini-publics to a clear and inclusive process for decision-making. Empirical studies of this strategy have found both successes and shortcomings. Little attention has been given to the possibility that the success of mini-publics in influencing public opinion is determined, in part, by the underlying design of the popular vote process. I outline how multi-stage popular votes could institutionalize an iterated dialogue between the micro-level mini-public and the mass, voting public to produce distinct democratic benefits. This serves as a model of how a systems approach to democratic theory can guide institutional design to address democratic functions of empowered inclusion, collective agenda and will formation, and collective decision-making.
构建更好的全民公决:将全民投票中的微型公众和大众公众联系起来
随着民选官员寻求建立决策的合法性,民众投票和小型公众越来越多地得到实施,尽管这些民主创新存在自身的民主缺陷。民众投票往往不符合审议理想,而小公众的包容和决策能力可能受到限制。将这两种设备结合起来可以改善公投活动中的审议,同时将小型公众与一个明确和包容的决策过程联系起来。对这一战略的实证研究既有成功之处,也有不足之处。很少有人注意到,微型公众能否成功地影响公众舆论,在一定程度上是由普选程序的基本设计决定的。我概述了多阶段普选如何使微观层面的小公众与大众、投票公众之间的反复对话制度化,从而产生明显的民主利益。这可以作为一个模型,说明民主理论的系统方法如何指导制度设计,以解决授权包容、集体议程和意志形成以及集体决策的民主功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信