29 research outputs found

    Should Progressive Constitutionalism Embrace Popular Constitutionalism?

    Get PDF

    Deliberative and epistemic approaches to democracy

    Get PDF
    Deliberative and epistemic approaches to democracy are two important dimensions of contemporary democratic theory. This chapter studies these dimensions in the emerging ecosystem of civic and political participation tools, and appraises their collective value in a new distinct concept: linked democracy. Linked democracy is the distributed, technology-supported collective decision-making process, where data, information and knowledge are connected and shared by citizens online. Innovation and learning are two key elements of Athenian democracies which can be facilitated by the new digital technologies, and a cross-disciplinary research involving computational scientists and democratic theorists can lead to new theoretical insights of democracy

    Response to Corey Brettschneider's review of Democracy and Legal Change

    No full text

    Democratic Rights: The Substance of Self-Government

    No full text

    Aristotle and the Judgment of the Many: Equality, Not Collective Quality

    No full text

    A Discussion of Josiah Ober’s The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece

    No full text

    Norms, Minorities, and Collective Choice Online

    No full text

    Analytical Democratic Theory: A Microfoundational Approach

    No full text
    International audienceA prominent and publicly influential literature challenges the quality of democratic decision making, drawing on political science findings with specific claims about the ubiquity of cognitive bias to lament citizens’ incompetence. A competing literature in democratic theory defends the wisdom of crowds, drawing on a cluster of models in support of the capacity of ordinary citizens to produce correct outcomes. In this Letter, we draw on recent findings in psychology to demonstrate that the former literature is based on outdated and erroneous claims and that the latter is overly sanguine about the circumstances that yield reliable collective decision making. By contrast, “interactionist” scholarship shows how individual-level biases are not devastating for group problem solving, given appropriate conditions. This provides possible microfoundations for a broader research agenda similar to that implemented by Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues on common-good provision, investigating how different group structures are associated with both success and failure in democratic decision making. This agenda would have implications for both democratic theory and democratic practice
    corecore