Deliberative Citizenship Initiative

Building Democracy One Conversation at a Time

Joshua Yesnowitz

Writing Deliberatively

by Leave a Comment

The Deliberative Pedagogy (DeeP) Faculty Collaborative consists of 15 faculty from Davidson College and five other Associated Colleges of the South institutions who are committed to learning and implementing new ways to improve and deepen the quality of their class discussions. Throughout the 2021-22 academic year, these faculty, who come from a wide array of disciplines, studied and discussed different deliberative pedagogy methods, shared their ideas and questions with one another, and worked to embed deliberation in their classrooms. In this special blog series, members of the Collaborative describe and reflect on their experiences developing and teaching their deliberation-involved courses.

The first-year writing seminar that I have taught this Spring semester explores questions of democratic health and the possibilities for political reform in the United States. Course readings emphasize the role of democratic norms and traditions, the challenge of persistent inequalities in American life, the erosion of public trust and faith in institutions, and the prospects for multiracial democracy and civic renewal. Given this thematic focus, along with the advantages of a small class size, deliberation has been employed both as a pedagogical tool and as a democratic practice to be examined for its possible utility for what ails American democracy. 

When preparing this course, though, I was concerned about how incorporating deliberative exercises could support my primary learning outcome of improving student writing. This concern immediately proved to be unfounded. Dedicating significant class time to the study of deliberative ideals and the cultivation of deliberative skills did not compete with, nor distract from, the goal of writing development. Rather, an attention to deliberation substantially complemented and directly informed this central curricular objective. While there were clear benefits for students to write about deliberation, even more significant to their growth as writers were the opportunities to deliberate about writing. The commitments that a participant is expected to embody in a deliberative setting – for example, the ability to provide reasoned judgments for one’s position and an openness to consider (and reflect upon) opposing arguments – are clearly transferable to the written work students are asked to produce. By the conclusion of the collaborative peer review and revision processes, students had become, we could say, engaged in the act of writing deliberatively.

Illustrative of this trajectory were our conversations about John Gastil and Katherine Knobloch’s Hope for Democracy (2021), a compelling text about the history, theory, and practice of citizen initiative review (CIR) boards. Situated within the most recent scholarship on democratic deliberation, readers are presented with a structurally intriguing narrative that combines character-driven storytelling with rigorous social science methods, written in a manner accessible to an undergraduate audience. Class discussions focused on matters of form and content, the mechanics of a strong argument, the evidentiary support for posited assertions, the plausibility of advocated reforms, and the authorial choices that should be emulated (or avoided) as students prepared their own prose. 

Students especially appreciated the clear introduction to the CIR (and other deliberative approaches to deepening citizenship), the emphasis on individual political agency, the efforts at measuring the effects of the CIR on political knowledge, and the authors’ willingness to address counterarguments such as the possible “democratic illusions” of direct democracy. Class critiques of Hope for Democracy were both stylistic and substantive. Some students responded unfavorably to the novelistic vignettes which frame most of the chapters while many of us (including the professor) were perplexed by the book’s unorthodox citation practices. In terms of content, several students questioned the plausibility (Is this reform scalable?) and the desirability (Are certain issues not amenable to deliberation?) of the proposed reform.  

If the scope of the challenges that the nation faces cannot be ameliorated by deliberation, as many students concluded, are there specific political reforms that could significantly strengthen U.S. democracy? This was the organizing prompt of our final in-class deliberation. Utilizing Gastil and Knobloch’s book as our point of departure, we then proceeded to a consideration of each student’s own preferred reform, which they would then expound upon in their final essays. By design, these more formalized deliberations occur at the conclusion of each section of the course, when students are digesting the insights of the primary reading and are beginning to think about how to contribute to a scholarly conversation and, in so doing, further develop their own analytical voice. Encouraged to read passages from their drafts in progress, students were now poised to share their own writing decisions, describe the novelty of their ideas, and receive critical (yet collegial) comments from their colleagues. Having just interrogated the claims of Hope for Democracy, students were now prepared to accept a similar treatment of their own efforts.1 

Students recognized that speaking about their writing ultimately improved their writing. In their course evaluations, many students remarked about the positive impact of these deliberative experiences on their writing. Deliberations were generative, and for some students, unexpectedly enjoyable:

         “I like how we were able to collect our thoughts through deliberation before writing assignments. The deliberations allowed me to bounce my ideas off of my peers and my professor.”

         “I am a big fan of discussing my ideas before having the chance to write about them so I feel like my writing really benefited from all of the speaking we did in class.”

          “I was excited for [deliberation] days, when we each came in after forming our own takeaways from the content we were assigned…I always felt like I was getting detailed feedback. It was almost fun to edit afterwards.”

If instructors are inclined to experiment with deliberative pedagogy, it is helpful to schedule multiple deliberations throughout the semester as it takes time for students to become familiarized with the expectations of the format and to develop stronger relationships such that they are willing to be more open with (and receptive to) their peers. As one student observed,

         The [deliberations] got to a deep, interesting level that…helped everyone to contribute to conversations more throughout the semester; we all got comfortable around each other and the small class environment really aided in that, for me specifically.

Despite my initial reservations about how deliberative pedagogy might function in a writing intensive course, my experience has been particularly rewarding. The reasons for which I attribute this success, though, are important to reiterate as they may not be applicable to others considering incorporating this approach. With fewer than ten students in each of the two sections I taught, students quickly developed a group rapport that would have been less likely to occur in a larger (more impersonal) class environment. This small class size made it possible for the group to practice informal deliberative talk throughout the semester, and for those less inclined to vocally participate, class deliberations, as a student affirmed, “forced [me] out of my comfort zone in the best way.” 

Additionally, a deliberative approach was especially well suited to the thematic focus of the seminar. We were never sacrificing attention to substantive material when our focus turned to deliberation. Indeed, as a proposed remedy to strengthen democratic health, democratic deliberation was certainly relevant to course content.2 These distinctive circumstances notwithstanding, deliberative pedagogy can play a productive role in many different types of classroom settings if the instructor has thought through its potential applications in a purposeful and deliberative manner.

1. An important final step of the assignment is the requirement that students include written reflections to the peer reviews as part of their revised essay submissions.

2. While this post has discussed Gastil and Knobloch’s Hope for Democracy, each of the four assigned books for this course address material which connects to democratic deliberation.

Social Movements and the Logic of Non-Deliberative Collective Action

by Leave a Comment

image of blocks spelling out the word change

By Joshua Yesnowitz, DCI Fellow

The final weeks of my Social Movements and Social Change (POL 239) class this past Spring semester were dedicated to a close reading of Daniel Gillion’s The Loud Minority: Why Protests Matter in American Democracy (2020). In the concluding chapter to this ambitious book about the electoral effects of protest marches and rallies, Gillion returns to a key lesson emphasized throughout our course: for advocacy efforts to be most impactful, movement organizers must understand the political landscape in which they are operating and seek to take advantage of the opportunities available within this constrained context. Regarding the contemporary environment in the US, Gillion (2020: 190) grants that “yes, protest is likely adding to our fears of becoming a more divided America because ideological protest does reinforce and even harden positions that we have on divisive issues.”

Rather than a lamentation about the state of public discourse, though, Gillion’s recognition focuses our attention on the purposes of protest activism in American life and how social movements – as intermediaries for communicating the grievances of constituencies who may lack support within institutional channels – must embrace non-deliberative collective action to achieve democratic aims. For example, the strategic message of “No Justice, No Peace” that one encounters at a Black Lives Matter march serves many functions. It is a demand for change; it is a demonstration of power; it is an expression of solidarity among allies; and it is a challenge to opponents. It is not a pursuit of common ground; it is not a call for moderation; and it is not an invitation for deliberation (although it might be a prelude to one, as discussed below).

This is not intended as a criticism; moreover, I think the slogan is particularly effective at advancing movement claims and in constructing a collective identity among the “politically disempowered.”[i] The broader point I wish to make is that this entirely appropriate framing of movement ideals (and the related tactics employed to realize these ideals) is often in tension with many of the aims of deliberation. Asserting that there are “beneficial effects of conflict,” scholar-activist Frances Fox-Piven maintains in a recent interview with The Nation that “polarization can be used as a tool for social change” and that one “distinctive contribution of movements” is to engage in “dissensus politics.”[ii]

This leaves us with a question: Is deliberation for everyone? In the remainder of this post, I draw upon the work of Sanders (1997) and Young (2001) to consider some activist arguments against deliberation and build upon the insights of Levine and Nierras (2007) and della Porta (2020) to offer a few ways in which deliberative processes are often useful for movement organizations and reflect upon how movement successes can (gradually and indirectly) address some of the serious concerns over mutual respect and exclusion inherent to the activist critique of deliberation.[iii]

Activist Skepticism of Deliberation

Social movement organizers must always calculate the consequences of their strategic choices. Any behavior which undermines the desired outcomes of increased public attention for the cause and greater policy responsiveness from policymakers should be avoided. To advance their interests, therefore, social movements sometimes adopt non-deliberative practices (including protesting, boycotting, sit-ins, demonstrations, striking, and public shaming) which directly pressure authorities, rather than promote deliberative approaches which might appear to activists to uphold the existing power structure. If politics is about acquiring power and gaining access to finite resources among competing interests, then conflict and confrontation are means to achieve movement goals.[iv] Once institutional power is achieved and respected, activists will possibly be more amenable to deliberative interactions, likely not because of some intrinsic reward to deliberation, but rather understood in transactional terms (i.e., the best way to further objectives at a specific stage of engagement).[v]

In addition to the interest group pluralist assessment of deliberation, some activists have also been suspicious of and/or alienated by the presumptions of a deliberative approach. In most cases, social movements speak on behalf of marginalized groups who have been excluded through formal political processes. Given these historical experiences, it is not surprising that a deliberative approach, with its “connotations of cautiousness and order,”[vi] would not necessarily be appealing to groups working toward challenging the status quo. The deliberative form, therefore, not only encourages certain types of discourse (e.g., radical alternatives would be less welcome than more ‘reasonable’ reform ideas), but also privileges particular styles of expressing one’s thoughts (i.e., ‘foresighted’ and ‘steady’ rather than ‘emotional’ or ‘uncivil’).[vii] This framework, according to this line of activist critique, results in some voices being more pronounced and more compelling than others “who are less likely to present their arguments in ways that we recognize as characteristically deliberative.”[viii]  The race, class, and gender implications of this assertion are quite clear: “Insidious prejudices,” Sanders (1997: 353) explains, “may incline citizens to hear some arguments and not others.” As the deliberation model is contingent upon mutual respect among participants, movement activists – being fully cognizant of explicit prejudices and implicit biases – may view this principle as aspirational, if not in many circumstances naïve, and would rightfully be hesitant to participate.[ix]

Another reason why activists might reject deliberation is because they believe there is nothing to gain by sharing a forum with those who espouse views that they deem unworthy of consideration (and at the potential risk of personal harm). Should deliberation proponents expect trans* rights activists, for example, to put themselves in a position of potentially having to justify their own humanity for the sake of hearing all sides of an issue? Activists will also argue that granting opponents a venue for conversation is already a concession, an undeserving form of legitimization for offensive speech.[x] The refusal to appear with advocates of certain ideas and/or to seek to prevent the dissemination of abhorrent views – often called no platforming (or deplatforming in other contexts) – is a non-deliberative practice that is explicitly endorsed by some groups.[xi]

Activist Contributions to, and Uses of, Deliberation

Based on these activist criticisms of deliberation, one would be inclined to negatively respond to the question posed above – Is deliberation for everyone?. If we reframe our locus of study, though, perhaps we can provide a more nuanced response. Movement activists aren’t categorically opposed to deliberation, but as Levine and Nierras (2007: 1) note, deliberative practices for many activists are appreciated “as part of a repertoire of democratic approaches, appropriate for some circumstances but not others.” In this final section, therefore, I identify ways in which deliberative aims already inform practices within movements and consider how social movement work can make the deliberation model more innovative and equitable.

In seeking to mobilize supporters and to target potential recruits, social movement activists may rely upon deliberative procedures internally and introduce ideas which are then later promoted within deliberative paradigms.[xii] From which frames are perceived to be most resonant to which tactics are strategically most effective, movements will often adopt horizontal decision-making structures which aim to build consensus among participants. Though not without its own serious failings (around issues of inclusion), one of the most dynamic and inspiring aspects of the Occupy Wall Street movement, for example, were the democratic conversations happening daily. Appropriating public spaces (a non-deliberative behavior) to discuss aspirations for the world in which they want to inhabit (a deliberative objective), Occupiers sought to use the encampment sites as prefigurative models of these ideals.

The “People’s Mic,” another tactical innovation of Occupy, highlights the deliberative disposition of listening. Born out of necessity when the NYPD barred amplification devices from the occupation in New York’s Zuccotti Park, activists were required to closely listen to all speakers at the General Assembly because those gathered nearest the stage would be compelled to repeat the speaker’s words so that all would be able to receive the message. In this process of recitation, voices became magnified and personal testimonials traveled a much greater distance than if the authorities had not enforced a no amplified sound policy.[xiii] Movements, more generally, may be usefully understood as deliberative idea generators.[xiv] Many deliberatively-oriented programs and practices – e.g., participatory budgeting, citizen assemblies, conversation agreements, and the progressive stack – were all initiated within movement contexts.[xv]

Finally (and most importantly), social movement activism may be a necessary precursor for equitable deliberation to occur. The success of past movement efforts, that is “distributing power to those traditionally excluded,”[xvi] creates the conditions for future deliberations where deliberators from all backgrounds are intentionally committed to mutual respect and inclusion.[xvii] Non-deliberative action, therefore, may be a logical pathway to pursue to achieve this deliberative ideal – a time when deliberation (in theory and in practice) can be for everyone.

 

* I am grateful to Graham Bullock for his thoughtful comments on an earlier iteration of this post.

[i] Abdullah, Karpowitz, and Raphael (2016: 5).

[ii] Engler (2021).

[iii] For further insights on these matters, see Beauvais (2020) and Smith (2020). I was introduced to these two readings via the Spring 2021 DCI Fellows cohort curriculum.

[iv] Levine and Nierras (2007: 10); Young (2001: 674).

[v] Motivations, of course, will differ due to the orientations and value commitments of any movement organization or individual activist. As is true in more institutional forms of politics, there will always be a diversity of approaches employed by and values prioritized within social movement communities.

[vi] Sanders (1997: 356).

[vii] Sanders (1997: 356).

[viii] Sanders (1997: 349).

[ix] It must be noted that the “difference critique” is not without its critics; scholars have offered empirical challenges (Hickerson and Gastil 2008) and more theoretical work (Neblo 2020) has focused on the “indispensable” role accorded to emotion in deliberative theory. In recent years, practitioners have developed deliberative guides that model “inclusion throughout the cycle of deliberative inquiry” (Maldonado 2017). 

[x] Levine and Nierras (2007: 9).

[xi] See Smith (2020: 17) on anti-fascist efforts to combat Alt-Right views by embracing an aggressive version of this approach. For the sake of brevity, I have only provided a few arguments advanced by activist critics of deliberation. A more exhaustive list of concerns is presented in Levine and Nierras (2007).    

[xii] Abdullah, Karpowitz, and Raphael (2016) describe the benefits of “enclave deliberations,” but locate their sites of interest as “organized community forums and political processes,” not movement spaces.

[xiii] On the power of testimonials, see Sanders (1997: 371).

[xiv] Della Porta (2020: 15).

[xv] On participatory democracy in social movements, more generally, see Polletta (2002).

[xvi] Levine and Nierras (2007: 11).

[xvii] On the “antecedents” to successful deliberation, see Beauvais (2020).

 

Works Cited

Carolyne Abdullah, Christopher F. Karpowitz, and Chad Raphael, “Affinity Groups, Enclave Deliberation, and Equity.” Journal of Public Deliberation 12:2 (2016), Article 6.

Edana Beauvais, “Deliberation and Non-Deliberative Communication.” Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16:1 (2020), 4-13.

Donatella della Porta, How Social Movements Can Save Democracy: Democratic Innovations from Below (Cambridge: Polity Press, 2020).

Mark Engler, “Frances Fox Piven Wants You to Raise Hell.” The Nation (5 May 2021), https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/frances-fox-piven-interview/.Daniel Q. Gillion, The Loud Minority: Why Protests Matter in American Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020).

Peter Levine and Rose Marie Nierras, “Activists’ Views of Deliberation.” Journal of Public Deliberation 3:1 (2007), Article 4.

Samantha Maldonado, “Inclusion Around the Cycle: Applying Strategies of Sufficient Inclusion

Throughout the Cycle of Deliberative Inquiry” (Colorado State University: Center for Public Deliberation, 2017), https://cpd.colostate.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/48/2017/07/Around-the-Cycle-Maldonado.pdf.

Francesca Polletta, Freedom is an Endless Meeting: Democracy in American Social Movements (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002).

Lynn M. Sanders, “Against Deliberation.” Political Theory 25:3 (June 1997), 347-376.

William Smith, “Deliberation in an Age of (Un)Civil Resistance.” Journal of Deliberative Democracy 16:1 (2020), 14-19.

Iris Marion Young, “Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy.” Political Theory 29:5 (October 2001), 670-690.

The Case for (S)electoral Democracy

by Leave a Comment

American flag

By Joshua Yesnowitz, DCI Fellow

The central question of the first-year writing seminar that I have taught this Fall semester regards the status of American democracy. In our class discussions, we have considered the defining characteristics of what we might term a healthy democracy, we have examined the challenges to democratic health that the United States presently faces, and we have examined potential reforms that might improve the nation’s democratic status. Given that the course has been meeting during the 2020 campaign, it is unsurprising that much of our attention has been focused on the role of elections in a democratic system. In reflecting upon the purposes of elections in a democratic society, William Hudson (2021), the author of our primary text, argues that US elections are quite undemocratic because among its many institutional design deficiencies, US elections do not allow for productive deliberation.[i] The partisan incentives for participants are such that several ideals of deliberation – open-minded inquiry, engaged dialogue and constructive disagreement, decision-making diversity, intellectual humility – are incompatible with the US electoral process.

To promote deliberative values in elections, Hudson (2021: 230) proposes increasing funding for public media and embracing the use of citizen assemblies and deliberative opinion polls, both of which could facilitate nuanced discussion and civic development.[ii] While these efforts are certainly well-intentioned and may succeed in making elections (marginally) more deliberative, Hélène Landemore, in her insightful new book Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the 21st Century (2020), argues that deliberative democrats should instead advocate for “selection mechanism[s] for representatives” that would lead to legislative bodies “with good deliberative potential.”[iii]

Unlike reformers who seek to expand opportunities for deliberation before elections (among candidates and voters) and after elections (among officials), Landemore is provocatively suggesting that, if we are serious about popular rule, we should be globally shifting to democratic systems in which representative (but nonelectoral) deliberative practices and procedures are privileged in place of elections. Given the barriers to participation, the limits to who is perceived as a credible candidate for office, and the unequal outcomes that an electoral system often produces, Landemore (2020: 43) claims that elections “may legitimately be seen as preventing rather than facilitating genuine rule by the people.”

A simple yet important point that Landemore emphasizes throughout is that although the concepts have often been referred to interchangeably, representative democracy does not necessarily have to mean electoral democracy. Seeking to correct this misperception, Landemore (2020: 79) proposes “a non-electoral form of democracy that is both representative and deliberative.” This open democracy framework is a set of principles designed to maximize democraticity, that is “the degree to which a given form of representation satisfies or expresses the principle of inclusiveness and equality among citizens.”[iv] I will address one of the five institutional principles in this brief reflection – deliberation – not only due to the substantive focus of the website on which this blog post appears, but also because Landemore (2020: 37) herself claims that the objective of open democracy is to place “deliberation front and center in a theory of democracy.”[v]

In support of this proposal to move toward a system of democratic representation realized via deliberative decision processes, Landemore expertly synthesizes the voluminous scholarship on the empirical benefits of deliberation.[vi] While our author highlights many of these promising findings – for example, policies shepherded through deliberative efforts are well-reasoned; the chances of resolving collective problems are improved when deliberative approaches are employed; and ancillary positive outcomes include increased levels of community spiritedness[vii] – Landemore finds deliberation to be most desirable because of the democratic ideal of popular rule it signifies. Deliberative democrats, moreover, do not merely “consent to power” but also “exercise [their] power.”[viii] Especially refreshing is Landemore’s (2020: 140) recognition that deliberative bodies are arenas of “positive dissensus.” In these spaces, objections are welcome, conflict is present, compromise is not fetishized, and civility is not an end in itself.

In Landemore’s open democracy, deliberation would be practiced in “mini-publics” across the nation. Analogous to a “supersized version of [a] jury,”[ix] a mini-public is

a large all-purpose, randomly selected assembly of between 150 and a thousand people or so, gathered for an extended period of time…for the purpose of agenda-setting and law-making of some kind, and connected via crowdsourcing platforms and deliberative forms (including other mini-publics) to the larger population.[x]

Citizen participation will be determined by sortition (a lottery-based system of selection) and deliberators will be expected to serve for a certain period of time before their rotation in the mini-public is completed.[xi] Despite its non-electoral character, the deliberative form of democratic representation acquires its legitimacy, according to Landemore (2020: 105), from its “intrinsic democratic credentials” and assembly members will be duty-bound by a “discursive”[xii] form of accountability to provide justifications for their decisions.

The notion of “representing and being represented in turn”[xiii] is appealing, but is it viable? In the final chapters of Open Democracy, Landemore begins to explore this question through an examination of recent real-world examples that approximate some of the deliberative procedures favored by the author. (The word approximate is significant here, because all of these efforts have occurred within electoral democracies.) Iceland’s constitutional revision process in the early 2010s serves as the primary case study – with some supplementary consideration of France’s 2019 Citizen Convention on Climate Change and Brazil’s National Public Policy Conferences (which have been held since the early 2000s). While Landemore acknowledges some of the obstacles that must be overcome (including the enduring challenge of inclusion and diversity along with resistance from elected officials to enact some of the citizen-led proposals), the narrative also demonstrates genuine promise and opens up possibilities for subsequent developments. As future open democracy efforts proceed, though, a note of caution regarding the role of experts in the deliberative process is warranted. Despite Landemore’s assurance that administrators are an important (if adjacent) part of the proposed framework – “experts [will be] on tap, not on top,”[xiv] – I remain concerned about institutional memory loss caused by such high turnover (demanded by the rotation principle) and the strong possibility of “simulative democracy”[xv] (also known as elite capture whereby professional organized groups may exploit amateur assembly members in search of relevant information).

When discussing the boldness of the open democracy framework with my class earlier this Fall, several students expressed skepticism over the audacity and scope of Landemore’s project. I share some of these reservations, but as I suggested at the time, the most constructive way to engage with the text is to consider open democracy both as a formal proposal to be critiqued but also as a set of aspirational ideals upon which to critically assess our existing institutions. With its explicit commitment to inclusive and equitable forms of democratic representation and its contextualization of the relationship between partisan politics and deliberation, Open Democracy allows us to broaden our horizons for democratic reform. Returning to the beginning of this post, would open democracy improve the health of US democracy? Of course. Regrettably, though, the current state of democratic life in the United States is in such a perilous state that this metric is indeed a very low hurdle to overcome.[xvi] Hélène Landemore’s thoughtful provocation compels us to think about how to make the desirable possible; the next step, dare I say, is to deliberate on these alternative futures.

 

 

[i] Hudson argues that many features of the American system contribute to the undemocratic nature of American elections. Each of these design choices (e.g., the Electoral College, a malapportioned US Senate, separation of powers framework, single-member districts) undermine democracy because in addition to the preclusion of deliberation, they also lead to a “lack of equal representation” and an “inability to form electoral majorities.” See William E. Hudson, American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America’s Future, Ninth Edition (Washington: CQ Press. 2021: 189). While reform discussions about how to respond to these structural matters are vitally important, this post addresses proposals that seek to remedy aspects of the deliberation deficit.

[ii] For more on the democratic promise of deliberative polling, see the extensive work by James S. Fishkin and colleagues at the Stanford University Center for Deliberative Democracy (https://cdd.stanford.edu/). For media coverage of an “America in One Room” conference, one of the Center’s recent deliberative experiments, see Emily Badger and Kevin Quealy, “These Americans Tried to Listen to One Another. A Year Later, Here’s How They’re Voting.” New York Times (24 October 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/10/24/upshot/these-526-voters-a-year-later.html.

[iii] Hélène Landemore, Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the 21st Century (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020), 40. For an article-length presentation of open democracy principles, see Hélène Landemore, “Deliberative Democracy as Open, Not (Just) Representative Democracy.” Daedalus 146:3 (Summer 2017), 51-63. For further insight into the development of Landemore’s research program, see Nathan Heller, “Politics Without Politicians.” New Yorker (19 February 2020), https://www.newyorker.com/news/the-future-of-democracy/politics-without-politicians.

[iv] Landemore (2020: 87).  

[v] The five principles of open democracy, as detailed in Chapter 6 (pp. 128-151) of Open Democracy, are (1) participation rights; (2) deliberation; (3) the majoritarian principle; (4) democratic representation; and (5) transparency. Together as a group in the order they have been presented, these principles, Landemore (2020: 129) asserts, “aim to institutionalize the ideal of popular rule as the equal right to participate in self-rule.”

[vi] For a fine review of this research, see Nicole Curato, John S. Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Carolyn M. Hendriks and Simon Niemeyer, “Twelve Key Findings in Deliberative Democracy Research.” Daedalus 146:3 (Summer 2017), 28-38. As cited in Landemore (2020: 139)

[vii] Landemore (2020: 37).  

[viii] Landemore (2020: xiv).

[ix] Landemore (2020: 13). The jury comparison is somewhat unfortunate considering how Americans often look for ways in which to avoid court service.

[x] Landemore (2020: 13). These groups, according to Goodin and Dryzek (2006: 220), must be “small enough to be genuinely deliberative, and representative enough to be genuinely democratic.” See Robert E. Goodin and John S. Dryzek, “Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics.” Politics & Society 34:2 (2006), 219-244. As quoted in Landemore (2020: 64).

[xi] Landemore (2020: 142).

[xii] Landemore (2020: 203).

[xiii] Landemore (2020: xvii).

[xiv] Landemore (2020: 192).

[xv] Landemore (2020: 195).

[xvi] At the time of this writing, the Republican Party is seeking to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election without any evidence to support such an effort. When majoritarian democracy as an ideal has been rejected by a major political party, I fear that introducing proposals which seek to deemphasize the role of elections would be weaponized by bad faith political actors.