Reviews of Books:The Capacity to Judge: Public Opinion and Deliberative Democracy in Upper Canada, 1791-1854 Jeffrey L. McNairn

2003 ◽  
Vol 108 (2) ◽  
pp. 506-507
Author(s):  
Cecilia Morgan
Author(s):  
John Ferejohn

The “folk” democratic tradition in the United States sees citizens not only as the unique source of political authorization but also as competent to pursue and protect their interests at the ballot box. Democracy’s commitment to equality requires that each person’s interests and views are entitled to equal consideration. I argue that equal concern for interests has some priority over equal respect for opinions and that plausible institutional realizations of deliberative democracy must reflect this priority. This does not mean that peoples’ opinions or votes can be ignored but that deliberation must aim to educate or “refine and enlarge” public opinion.


Author(s):  
Pamela Johnston Conover ◽  
Patrick R. Miller

Though it is often a casual byproduct of social interactions, everyday political talk is nonetheless vital to deliberative democracy. In this chapter, we review current empirical research establishing the importance of everyday political talk. We also explore the psychology of everyday talk, explaining how over time everyday political talk encourages citizens to clarify their preferences, and develop understandings of politics that reflect their interests and identities. Finally, we probe the links between everyday talk, the media, and the formation of public opinion. Overall, we argue that by developing in citizens both a broad understanding of politics and a language to discuss it, everyday political talk prepares them for political action, including deliberation in more formal settings.


Author(s):  
Elihu Katz

This chapter raises three sorts of questions about the much-vaunted concept and practice of “deliberative democracy.” It asks, normatively, whether this form of governance is more desirable than, say “representative democracy.” Theoretically, it asks whether the small-group discussions that it implies are adequately theorized as part of a larger system of decision-making involving political parties, public opinion, parliaments, etc. Questioning the viability of some of the basic assumptions implicit in citizen deliberation, a partial review of relevant empirical research provides both positive and negative answers.


Author(s):  
James S. Fishkin

Democracy requires some connection to the “will of the people.” But there are impediments to how that will is formed and how it is connected to public decisions. Efforts to manipulate public opinion, the competitive pressures of campaigns, discussions among the like-minded on social media, distortions of campaign finance all make it difficult for a mostly inattentive mass public to come to considered judgments. “Deliberative democracy” offers a useful method of supplementing our current political practices. There is a need for research and experimentation into entry points for a thoughtful and representative public voice. Such efforts provide a solution to a recurring dilemma—do we listen to the people and get the angry voices of populism or rely on widely distrusted elites and get policies that seem out of touch with the public’s concerns. Populism or technocracy? Deliberative democracy can provide a thoughtful and representative public voice.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document