Deliberative Democracy and Compulsory Voting

Hill, Lisa

doi:10.1089/elj.2013.0204

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 75 publications

(49 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most of these democratic countries and populations rely on anonymous voting to make important social or political decisions that have future consequences for the subsequent generations without requiring deliberation and accountability. Importantly, it is very likely that societies and countries will continue voting as a democratic mechanism in future [125]. In the real world, however, there are several examples of deliberation and accountability practices (see [23,25,59,88,89]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intergenerational sustainability (IS) has emerged as the most serious social problem reflecting climate change and accumulation of public debt in modern democratic societies, undermining the potential interests and concerns of future generations. However, little is known about whether or not deliberative forms of democracy with majority voting help support at maintaining IS by representing future generations’ potential interests and concerns. We institute IS dilemma game with three forms of decision-making models with majority voting and examine how they maintain IS in laboratory experiments. In the IS dilemma game, a sequence of six generations is prepared where each generation consisting of three subjects is asked to choose either maintaining IS (sustainable option) or maximizing their own generation’s payoff by irreversibly costing the subsequent generations (unsustainable option) with anonymous voting systems: (1) majority voting (MV), (2) deliberative majority voting (DMV) and (3) majority voting with deliberative accountability (MVDA). In MV and DMV, generations vote for their choices without and with deliberation, respectively. In MVDA, generations are asked to be possibly accountable for their choices to the subsequent generations during deliberation, and then vote. Our analysis shows that a decision-making model with only majority voting generally does not address IS, while DMV and MVDA treatments induce more and much more generations to choose a sustainable option than MV, respectively. Overall, the results demonstrate that deliberation and accountability along with majority voting shall be necessary in models of decision-making at resolving IS problems and representing future generations’ potential interests and concerns.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma

2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The challenge lies in identifying the tools and approaches to achieve decisions that are both reflective of local needs and broader policy outcomes (Healey 2006). Apart from the fact that several of the authors are Swiss, Switzerland was chosen as a case-study area because, whilst many countries make use of varying levels of deliberation to engage their population in decision-making, no other jurisdiction has such entrenched participatory mechanisms (Steiner 2012;Hill 2013;Della Porta et al 2017;OECD 2017). Dryzek (2009) defines the deliberative capacity of a political system as the degree to which decisions and then outcomes truly reflect the wishes and values of the population.…”

Section: The Swiss Deliberative Democratic Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

Wildfire, Environmental Risk and Deliberative Planning in the Locarnese Region of Switzerland

Bardsley

Conedera

et al. 2021

Environmental Management

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though deliberationists like Dryzek (2000) or Benhabib (1996) attempt to remove aggregation from their conception of democracy, it does not seem to be practically possible to do so. In the end, the institution of voting “will likely persist as the primary means by which we make decisions,” while deliberative democracy “will likely continue in a supplementary role” (Hill 2013, 454) due to the limits of time and resources. Thus, a theory of democracy relevant to our democracies should include aggregative democracy as the primary means for social decisions to be relevant and applicable to our democracies.…”

Section: Epistemic Fairness As a Founding Principle Of The Institutio...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Democracy and Epistemic Fairness: Testimonial Justice as a Founding Principle of Aggregative Democracy

Kim¹

2021

The Southern J of Philosophy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current discussion on the relationship of epistemic justice to democracy focuses on its relationship to deliberative democracy. This article concerns the relationship of epistemic justice—specifically, testimonial justice which I call “epistemic fairness”—to aggregative democracy or democracy by voting. The aim of this article is to establish that in a good theory of democracy, epistemic fairness is one of the founding principles of the democratic institution of voting, that is, the principles by which the democratic institution of voting is organized. Under an arguably plausible interpretation, the democratic institution of voting turns out to be committed to realizing epistemic fairness. If a theory of democracy implies that epistemic fairness is a founding principle of the democratic institution of voting, a number of implications follow with respect to the issues related to the practice of voting in actual democracies, such as the problem of gerrymandering or the fairness of the aggregation rule.

show abstract

Deliberative Democracy and Compulsory Voting

Cited by 6 publications

References 75 publications

Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma

Deliberative Forms of Democracy and Intergenerational Sustainability Dilemma

Wildfire, Environmental Risk and Deliberative Planning in the Locarnese Region of Switzerland

Democracy and Epistemic Fairness: Testimonial Justice as a Founding Principle of Aggregative Democracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About