1 / 25

E- Democracy and the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

Two Models of Democracy: The Market and the Forum. A thin, liberal Democracy. A strong, liberal Democracy. . . . . Citizenship Theory and Deliberative Polling. Citizen*. Rational. Reasonable. Moral Powers. Sense of Fairness (Reciprocity). Capacity for a Conception of the Good. The Fact ofPluralism**.

duer
Download Presentation

E- Democracy and the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

    1. Asia-Pacific Computing and Philosophy Conference Bangkok, Thailand January, 2005 Robert Cavalier Carnegie Mellon E- Democracy and the Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere

    2. Two Models of Democracy: The Market and the Forum

    3. Citizenship Theory and Deliberative Polling

    4. The Emergence of Public Opinion as the Interface between the State and Civil Society*

    5. Jim Fishkin’s Deliberative Poll® and the Regulatory Ideal of Deliberation “the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion...” JS Mill, On Liberty “An ideal of deliberation…would take us ultimately to something like the ‘ideal speech situation’ of Jurgen Habermas -- a situation of free and equal discussion, unlimited in its duration, constrained only by the consensus which would be arrived at by the ‘force of the better argument’” (Democracy and Deliberation, p. 36)

    6. Deliberative Polls®: Equality and Deliberation Dilemma: Movement southwest serves political equality, but movement northeast serves deliberation “Our choice seems to be between a kind of politically equal but nondeliberative direct democracy (e.g., primaries and referendums) and a kind of deliberative but not politically equal representative democracy” Objective: “To achieve deliberative classification for an institution that also managed…to achieve both political equality and nontyranny.”

    7. Fishkin’s Deliberative Poll® “A deliberative poll…brings the face-to-face democracy of the Athenian Assembly or the New England town meeting to the large-scale nation-state.” “A deliberative opinion poll models what the electorate would think if, hypothetically, it could be immersed in an intensive deliberative process.” “A deliberative poll is prescriptive, not predictive. It has recommending force…”

    8. Methods of Selection for Ascertaining Public Opinion

    9. New Haven Regional Deliberative Poll® (March, 2002): Small Group Settings

    10. Panels of Experts

    11. Plenary Sessions

    13. E-Democracy Movements

    14. E-Democracy Movements

    15. E-Deliberative Democracy: Unchat

    17. PBS’s Deliberative Polling Initiative

    19. PICOLA Project: Deliberative Poll

    20. Creating an On-line Citizen

    24. Postscript: Overcoming Rational Ignorance Through Deliberative Polls and Deliberation Day Anthony Downs’ An Economic Theory of Democracy (“Deductions from the Citizen-Rationality Hypothesis”) Prop. 12: “Because nearly every citizen realizes his vote is not decisive in each election, the incentive of most citizens to acquire information before voting is very small” Prop. 13: A large percentage of citizens -- including voters -- do not become informed to any significant degree on the issues involved in elections, even if they believe the outcomes to be important” Data shows that Deliberative Poll do motivate “a microcosm of the entire population to overcome the incentives for rational ignorance and to engage in enough substantive face to face discussion to arrive at informed judgments—informed about the issues and the main competing arguments about them that other citizens would offer.” (Fishkin, Who Speaks for the People? Deliberation and Public Consultation”)Data shows that Deliberative Poll do motivate “a microcosm of the entire population to overcome the incentives for rational ignorance and to engage in enough substantive face to face discussion to arrive at informed judgments—informed about the issues and the main competing arguments about them that other citizens would offer.” (Fishkin, Who Speaks for the People? Deliberation and Public Consultation”)

    25. Postscript: Overcoming Rational Ignorance Through Deliberative Polls and Deliberation Day Fishkin and Ackerman’s Deliberation Day PSB Deliberation Day (October 16th, 2004) Media Partner: WQED Multimedia Proposed “Pittsburgh Regional Program for Deliberative Democracy” (2005-2006) Improving Regional Decision-Making Through Deliberative Democracy Sponsored by the Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon Two Deliberative Polls per year (two topics per deliberative poll) Mixture of face-to-face and online (synchronous and asynchronous)

    26. References and Resources Fishkin, James. The Voice of the People (1995) Pittsburgh Citizen’s Deliberation Site (http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/caae/dp/) PBS By The People (www.pbs.org/newshour/btp/) Stanford’s Center for Deliberative Democracy (cdd.stanford.edu/)

More Related