However, the validity of this conclusion partly depends on how one defines deliberation and participation. Forthcoming with Journal of Political Philosophy. About Finns participated in the law-reform process online by sharing their ideas, knowledge and perspectives about off-road traffic. This article reports a pioneering case study of a crowdsourced law-reform process in Finland. William Nelson — — Episteme 5 1: Sign in to use this feature.
|Published (Last):||5 March 2019|
|PDF File Size:||9.47 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||18.70 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Reviews 3 Individual decision making can often be wrong due to misinformation, impulses, or biases. Collective decision making, on the other hand, can be surprisingly accurate. She shows that the processes and procedures of democratic decision making form a cognitive system that ensures that decisions taken by the many are more likely to be right than decisions taken by the few.
Landemore considers how the argument plays out with respect to two main mechanisms of democratic politics: inclusive deliberation and majority rule.
In deliberative settings, the truth-tracking properties of deliberation are enhanced more by inclusiveness than by individual competence. Landemore explores this idea in the contexts of representative democracy and the selection of representatives. When inclusive deliberation and majority rule are combined, they beat less inclusive methods, in which one person or a small group decide.
She is the author of Hume: Probability and Reasonable Choice. It scrutinizes and synthesizes a vast body of work, paying as much attention to the failures of deliberation and majority voting as to their achievements.
Nobody working on normative theories of democracy can afford to ignore it. Paying close attention to positive theory and empirical evidence, it offers a gust of fresh air. It will have a large audience both within and outside the political theory community. A real achievement, Democratic Reason will have a wide readership.