{"id":1040,"date":"2020-12-11T20:36:37","date_gmt":"2020-12-11T20:36:37","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/?p=1040"},"modified":"2024-09-28T02:41:17","modified_gmt":"2024-09-28T02:41:17","slug":"the-case-for-selectoral-democracy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/blogposts\/the-case-for-selectoral-democracy\/","title":{"rendered":"The Case for (S)electoral Democracy"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"American<\/a><\/p>\n

By Joshua Yesnowitz, DCI Fellow<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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]<\/a> The partisan incentives for participants are such that several ideals of deliberation \u2013 open-minded inquiry, engaged dialogue and constructive disagreement, decision-making diversity, intellectual humility \u2013 are incompatible with the US electoral process.<\/p>\n

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]<\/a> While these efforts are certainly well-intentioned and may succeed in making elections (marginally) more deliberative, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Landemore, in her insightful new book Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the 21st Century <\/em>(2020), argues that deliberative democrats should instead advocate for \u201cselection mechanism[s] for representatives\u201d that would lead to legislative bodies \u201cwith good deliberative potential.\u201d[iii]<\/a><\/p>\n

Unlike reformers who seek to expand opportunities for deliberation before <\/em>elections (among candidates and voters) and after<\/em> 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<\/em> 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 \u201cmay legitimately be seen as preventing rather than facilitating genuine rule by the people.\u201d<\/p>\n

A simple yet important point that Landemore emphasizes throughout is that although the concepts have often been referred to interchangeably, representative democracy<\/em> does not necessarily have to mean electoral democracy<\/em>. Seeking to correct this misperception, Landemore (2020: 79) proposes \u201ca non-electoral form of democracy that is both representative and deliberative.\u201d This open democracy<\/em> framework is a set of principles designed to maximize democraticity<\/em>, that is \u201cthe degree to which a given form of representation satisfies or expresses the principle of inclusiveness and equality among citizens.\u201d[iv]<\/a> I will address one of the five institutional principles in this brief reflection \u2013 deliberation<\/em> \u2013 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 \u201cdeliberation front and center in a theory of democracy.\u201d[v]<\/a><\/p>\n

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]<\/a> While our author highlights many of these promising findings \u2013 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]<\/a> \u2013 Landemore finds deliberation to be most desirable because of the democratic ideal of popular rule it signifies. Deliberative democrats, moreover, do not merely \u201cconsent<\/em> to power\u201d but also \u201cexercise<\/em> [their] power.\u201d[viii]<\/a> Especially refreshing is Landemore\u2019s (2020: 140) recognition that deliberative bodies are arenas of \u201cpositive dissensus.\u201d In these spaces, objections are welcome, conflict is present, compromise is not fetishized, and civility is not an end in itself.<\/p>\n

In Landemore\u2019s open democracy, deliberation would be practiced in \u201cmini-publics\u201d across the nation. Analogous to a \u201csupersized version of [a] jury,\u201d[ix]<\/a> a mini-public is<\/p>\n

a large all-purpose, randomly selected assembly of between 150 and a thousand people or so, gathered for an extended period of time\u2026for 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]<\/a><\/p>\n

Citizen participation will be determined by sortition<\/em> (a lottery-based system of selection) and deliberators will be expected to serve for a certain period of time before their rotation<\/em> in the mini-public is completed.[xi]<\/a> Despite its non-electoral character, the deliberative form of democratic representation acquires its legitimacy, according to Landemore (2020: 105), from its \u201cintrinsic democratic credentials\u201d and assembly members will be duty-bound by a \u201cdiscursive\u201d[xii]<\/a> form of accountability to provide justifications for their decisions.<\/p>\n

The notion of \u201crepresenting and being represented in turn\u201d[xiii]<\/a> is appealing, but is it viable? In the final chapters of Open Democracy<\/em>, 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<\/em> is significant here, because all of these efforts have occurred within electoral democracies.) Iceland\u2019s constitutional revision process in the early 2010s serves as the primary case study \u2013 with some supplementary consideration of France\u2019s 2019 Citizen Convention on Climate Change<\/em> and Brazil\u2019s National Public Policy Conferences<\/em> (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\u2019s assurance that administrators are an important (if adjacent) part of the proposed framework \u2013 \u201cexperts [will be] on tap, not on top,\u201d[xiv]<\/a> \u2013 I remain concerned about institutional memory loss caused by such high turnover (demanded by the rotation<\/em> principle) and the strong possibility of \u201csimulative democracy\u201d[xv]<\/a> (also known as elite capture whereby professional organized groups may exploit amateur assembly members in search of relevant information).<\/p>\n

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\u2019s 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<\/em> 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]<\/a> H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Landemore\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

[i]<\/a> 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 \u201clack of equal representation\u201d and an \u201cinability to form electoral majorities.\u201d See William E. Hudson, American Democracy in Peril: Eight Challenges to America\u2019s Future, Ninth Edition<\/em> (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.<\/p>\n

[ii]<\/a> 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\/<\/a>). For media coverage of an \u201cAmerica in One Room\u201d conference, one of the Center\u2019s recent deliberative experiments, see Emily Badger and Kevin Quealy, \u201cThese Americans Tried to Listen to One Another. A Year Later, Here\u2019s How They\u2019re Voting.\u201d New York Times<\/em> (24 October 2020), https:\/\/www.nytimes.com\/interactive\/2020\/10\/24\/upshot\/these-526-voters-a-year-later.html<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[iii]<\/a> H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Landemore, Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the 21st Century<\/em> (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020), 40. For an article-length presentation of open democracy principles, see H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Landemore, \u201cDeliberative Democracy as Open, Not (Just) Representative Democracy.\u201d Daedalus<\/em> 146:3 (Summer 2017), 51-63. For further insight into the development of Landemore\u2019s research program, see Nathan Heller, \u201cPolitics Without Politicians.\u201d New Yorker<\/em> (19 February 2020), https:\/\/www.newyorker.com\/news\/the-future-of-democracy\/politics-without-politicians<\/a>.<\/p>\n

[iv]<\/a> Landemore (2020: 87).\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

[v]<\/a> The five principles of open democracy, as detailed in Chapter 6 (pp. 128-151) of Open Democracy<\/em>, 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, \u201caim to institutionalize the ideal of popular rule as the equal right to participate in self-rule.\u201d<\/p>\n

[vi]<\/a> For a fine review of this research, see Nicole Curato, John S. Dryzek, Selen A. Ercan, Carolyn M. Hendriks and Simon Niemeyer, \u201cTwelve Key Findings in Deliberative Democracy Research.\u201d Daedalus<\/em> 146:3 (Summer 2017), 28-38. As cited in Landemore (2020: 139)<\/p>\n

[vii]<\/a> Landemore (2020: 37).\u00a0\u00a0 <\/em><\/p>\n

[viii]<\/a> Landemore (2020: xiv).<\/p>\n

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

[x]<\/a> Landemore (2020: 13). These groups, according to Goodin and Dryzek (2006: 220), must be \u201csmall enough to be genuinely deliberative, and representative enough to be genuinely democratic.\u201d See Robert E. Goodin and John S. Dryzek, \u201cDeliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics.\u201d Politics & Society<\/em> 34:2 (2006), 219-244. As quoted in Landemore (2020: 64).<\/p>\n

[xi]<\/a> Landemore (2020: 142).<\/p>\n

[xii]<\/a> Landemore (2020: 203).<\/p>\n

[xiii]<\/a> Landemore (2020: xvii).<\/p>\n

[xiv]<\/a> Landemore (2020: 192).<\/p>\n

[xv]<\/a> Landemore (2020: 195).<\/p>\n

[xvi]<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":45,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[4,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1040","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","category-blogposts","category-deep","entry"],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","rttpg_featured_image_url":null,"rttpg_author":{"display_name":"Joshua Yesnowitz","author_link":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/author\/joshua\/"},"rttpg_comment":0,"rttpg_category":"Blog Posts<\/a> Faculty Posts<\/a>","rttpg_excerpt":"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…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1040","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/45"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1040"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1040\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2935,"href":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1040\/revisions\/2935"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1040"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1040"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/deliberativecitizenship.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1040"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}