Fishkin proposes deliberative democracy as a solution to include the general public in politics and policy formation in a thoughtful way. He argues that current methods manipulate public opinion for special interests rather than representing the public's considered views. Fishkin's concept of "deliberative polls" uses random selection and moderated discussions to shift participants' views toward more informed, refined opinions. Experiments in various countries found that deliberative polls helped address difficult public issues. However, questions remain about feasibility in societies with strong conflicts or partisanship.
En egipto eng Relation Sandro Suzart SUZART GOOGLE INC United States o...Sandro Suzart
relationship between Sandro Suzart SUZART GOOGLE INC and United States on Demonstrations 2013 and Impeachments of 22 governments Relation, Sandro Suzart, SUZART, GOOGLE INC, United States on Demonstrations countries IMPEACHMENT GOOGLE INC
En egipto eng Relation Sandro Suzart SUZART GOOGLE INC United States o...Sandro Suzart
relationship between Sandro Suzart SUZART GOOGLE INC and United States on Demonstrations 2013 and Impeachments of 22 governments Relation, Sandro Suzart, SUZART, GOOGLE INC, United States on Demonstrations countries IMPEACHMENT GOOGLE INC
Bridging the gap between public officials and the public slides with video ...Matt Leighninger
How can legislators and other leaders help create more productive, healthy civil discourse? A new slideshow from the DDC summarizes recent research on legislators’ attitudes, and compares those findings with evaluations of deliberative projects. In these new materials, we ask whether public deliberation projects can create the kind of communication legislators say they want with their constituents. Finally, we provide a set of recommendations for public officials, funders, and the field of public engagement.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI)inventionjournals
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Humanities and Social Science. IJHSSI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Humanities and Social Science, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online
Bridging the gap between public officials and the public slides with video ...Matt Leighninger
How can legislators and other leaders help create more productive, healthy civil discourse? A new slideshow from the DDC summarizes recent research on legislators’ attitudes, and compares those findings with evaluations of deliberative projects. In these new materials, we ask whether public deliberation projects can create the kind of communication legislators say they want with their constituents. Finally, we provide a set of recommendations for public officials, funders, and the field of public engagement.
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI)inventionjournals
International Journal of Humanities and Social Science Invention (IJHSSI) is an international journal intended for professionals and researchers in all fields of Humanities and Social Science. IJHSSI publishes research articles and reviews within the whole field Humanities and Social Science, new teaching methods, assessment, validation and the impact of new technologies and it will continue to provide information on the latest trends and developments in this ever-expanding subject. The publications of papers are selected through double peer reviewed to ensure originality, relevance, and readability. The articles published in our journal can be accessed online
Resumen ejecutivo La Unión Europea se enfrenta al desafío de definir cuáles deben ser las políticas que en materia de energía y cambio climático, más allá de 2020, rijan en gran medida la evolución de sus Estados Miembros. Desde CEOE se estima preciso tener en cuenta las siguientes consideraciones a la hora de diseñar dichas políticas.
Judicial Review & Dual SovereigntyONLY REFERENCE AN ARTICLE IF ITatianaMajor22
Judicial Review & Dual Sovereignty
ONLY REFERENCE AN ARTICLE IF IT’S THE BASIS OF YOUR ANSWER. EXAMPLE: “ARTICLE 3 IN THE US CONSTITUTION SERVES AS A STRONG MODEL FOE JUSDICIAL CREATION”
DO NOT CITE A FULL CASE (EXAMPLE:MAPP V OHIO, 237 f2d, 1998)
Limit your response to 100 words total for both parts
Part #1 : Judicial Review
How does judicial review balance the governmental powers between the different governmental branches, the President, the Legislature and the Supreme Court?
Part 2: Dual Sovereignty
What powers should be decided by the federal government, and only the federal government, under a dual sovereignty system of government?
Policy Futures in Education
Volume 12 Number 3 2014
www.wwwords.co.uk/PFIE
417 http://dx.doi.org/10.2304/pfie.2014.12.3.417
Constructive Controversy as a Means of Teaching
Citizens how to Engage in Political Discourse
DAVID W. JOHNSON & ROGER T. JOHNSON
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
ABSTRACT Positive political discourse is the heart of democracy. The purposes of political discourse
include making an effective decision about the course the society should take and building a moral
bond among all members of the society. A responsibility of social sciences within a democratic society
is to provide the theory, research, and normative procedures needed to make political discourse
constructive. A theory underlying political discourse is constructive controversy. There is considerable
research that indicates controversy results in significant increases in the quality and creativity of
decision making and problem solving, the quality of relationships among citizens, and improvements
in the psychological health of the citizenry. From the validated theory, both a teaching and decision
making procedure has been developed and field tested. The theory of constructive controversy, the
supporting research, and the normative procedure provide a valid empirically based process for
political discourse.
Introduction
In a democratic society, each generation has to learn how to participate in the democratic process.
To be good citizens, individuals need to learn how to engage in collective decision making about
community and societal issues (Dalton, 2007). Collective decision making involves political
discourse. While the word ‘discourse’ has been defined in many different ways by linguists and
others (Foucault, 1970; Fairclough, 1995; Jaworski & Coupland, 1999), according to Webster’s
Dictionary (Merrian-Webster, 2003), the concept ‘discourse’ has two major meanings: (a) formal
communication of thoughts about a serious subject through words (spoken or written); and (b)
rationality or the ability to reason. ‘Political discourse’ is the formal exchange of reasoned views as
to which of several alternative courses of action should be taken to solve a societal problem. In
political discour ...
Debate on the Democracy of the Future, in the Digital Era (from Theory to Pra...AJHSSR Journal
ABSTRACT : This article addresses the Democracy of the Future in a context of dynamic change in the reality
of people's lives in the Digital Age. Democracy is a political regime in which all citizens in the enjoyment of
their political rights also participate — directly or through elected representatives — in choosing the model of
governance for the country and or region, in its development and in the creation of laws, exercising the power
of governance through universal suffrage . It covers the social, economic and cultural conditions that allow the
exercise of power, free and equal to political self-determination.
Effective and efficient political leadership in representative democracy poses new challenges to political
powers. Traditional theoretical and practical political leadership needs a new systematic approach to seeking a
holistic vision for the constant improvement of meeting the social and economic needs of populations.
The greatest challenge that theory and practice face is the identification of effective
instruments for democracy of the future and deliberative practices so that the decisions
taken are considered rational, transparent, legitimate, in Freedom and protect the human
rights of all citizens and that they feel respected, represented and committed to their
implementation.
KEYWORDS: Information , Democracy, Democracy of the Future, Digital Age.
1 Week 3 Rational and Expressive Choice .docxMARRY7
1
Week 3
Rational and Expressive Choice
Rational Choice Theory and the Rational Voter Model (P = B > C; or
Participation or voter choice (P) = perceived benefits of participation or
choice (B) > perceived costs of participation or choice (C)) became popular
in the 1970s. Pursuant to this theory and model, voters decide whether to
vote and which candidate to vote for on some rational basis, usually on the
basis of which action gives them greater expected benefits. The model lends
itself more than others to predicting what effects changes in external
conditions will have on the vote. A major contribution of the model was to
emphasize the role of issues in voter choice.
The paradox of participation calls into question this theoretical
perspective. The paradox theorizes that the rational individual will not
waste resources by bearing the costs of taking part in the voting process but
will instead take a free ride on the efforts of others. This is known as the
free rider problem. The problem is especially acute when the individual
does not perceive their vote as being decisive to the election outcome.
Some have used rational choice theory to argue that those in a high
socio-economic class would be less active “because they have the education
and intellectual sophistication to comprehend the free-rider problem and
2
because their high salaries raise the opportunity cost of participation” (Verba
1995, 284). The facts however suggest this hypothesis is false. In fact,
strong empirical evidence demonstrates that those in a high socio-economic
class are actually the most likely to be active.
Other rational choice proponents, including Anthony Downs, have
argued that lower information and transaction costs for the well educated
imply that it is actually easier for them to participate in politics. Verba
(1995) notes “[t]his approach has the virtue of fitting the facts but seems
somewhat post hoc” (284).
Overall, rational choice theory must be praised for its theoretical
elegance. But, the theory has done a poor job of predicting political
participation. More specifically, the theory has failed to predict how much
political activity and who will take part.
Some have argued that expressive choice theory can provide a more
compelling explanation of voter behavior. According to Schuessler in A
Logic of Expressive Choice (2000), individuals do not necessarily participate
in collective action in order to produce outcomes but instead often do so in
order to express who they are by attaching themselves to such outcomes.
Because under Schuessler’s perspective the value of participation
emerges not from the outcome but from the process of participation itself,
3
the free-rider problem is no longer a concern. Participation therefore is not a
form of investment but rather a form of consumption. Schuessler wrote,
“Consumption ben ...
Public Choice. Political economic digest series - 5 Akash Shrestha
In this series we’ll be discussing about Public Choice. Public Choice Theory is directed toward the study of politics based on ecomonic principles. We generally, tend to think that politicians and government officials are benevolent “public servants” who faithfully carry out the “will of the people.” In tending to the public’s business, voters, politicians, and policymakers are supposed somehow to rise above their own self-interests. However it is not true at all.
Week 3Rational and Expressive Choice Rational Choice The.docxmelbruce90096
Week 3
Rational and Expressive Choice
Rational Choice Theory and the Rational Voter Model (P = B > C; or Participation or voter choice (P) = perceived benefits of participation or choice (B) > perceived costs of participation or choice (C)) became popular in the 1970s. Pursuant to this theory and model, voters decide whether to vote and which candidate to vote for on some rational basis, usually on the basis of which action gives them greater expected benefits. The model lends itself more than others to predicting what effects changes in external conditions will have on the vote. A major contribution of the model was to emphasize the role of issues in voter choice.
The paradox of participation calls into question this theoretical perspective. The paradox theorizes that the rational individual will not waste resources by bearing the costs of taking part in the voting process but will instead take a free ride on the efforts of others. This is known as the free rider problem. The problem is especially acute when the individual does not perceive their vote as being decisive to the election outcome.
Some have used rational choice theory to argue that those in a high socio-economic class would be less active “because they have the education and intellectual sophistication to comprehend the free-rider problem and because their high salaries raise the opportunity cost of participation” (Verba 1995, 284). The facts however suggest this hypothesis is false. In fact, strong empirical evidence demonstrates that those in a high socio-economic class are actually the most likely to be active.
Other rational choice proponents, including Anthony Downs, have argued that lower information and transaction costs for the well educated imply that it is actually easier for them to participate in politics. Verba (1995) notes “[t]his approach has the virtue of fitting the facts but seems somewhat post hoc” (284).
Overall, rational choice theory must be praised for its theoretical elegance. But, the theory has done a poor job of predicting political participation. More specifically, the theory has failed to predict how much political activity and who will take part.
Some have argued that expressive choice theory can provide a more compelling explanation of voter behavior. According to Schuessler in A Logic of Expressive Choice (2000), individuals do not necessarily participate in collective action in order to produce outcomes but instead often do so in order to express who they are by attaching themselves to such outcomes.
Because under Schuessler’s perspective the value of participation emerges not from the outcome but from the process of participation itself, the free-rider problem is no longer a concern. Participation therefore is not a form of investment but rather a form of consumption. Schuessler wrote, “Consumption benefits are inextricably tied to expression: the sports fan’s expression of team support is required for him to enjoy his.
En egipto eng Relation between Sandro Suzart, SUZART, GOOGLE INC, Unite...Sandro Santana
Sandro Suzart, SUZART, GOOGLE INC and United States on relationship among Demonstrations, 2013. IMPEACHMENTS of 22 governments, Relation, Sandro Suzart, SUZART, GOOGLE INC, United States, Demonstrations countries IMPEACHMENT, GOOGLE INC, the torture suffered by Sandro Suzart, Genocide in Egypt and Lybia.
03062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
ys jagan mohan reddy political career, Biography.pdfVoterMood
Yeduguri Sandinti Jagan Mohan Reddy, often referred to as Y.S. Jagan Mohan Reddy, is an Indian politician who currently serves as the Chief Minister of the state of Andhra Pradesh. He was born on December 21, 1972, in Pulivendula, Andhra Pradesh, to Yeduguri Sandinti Rajasekhara Reddy (popularly known as YSR), a former Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh, and Y.S. Vijayamma.
role of women and girls in various terror groupssadiakorobi2
Women have three distinct types of involvement: direct involvement in terrorist acts; enabling of others to commit such acts; and facilitating the disengagement of others from violent or extremist groups.
हम आग्रह करते हैं कि जो भी सत्ता में आए, वह संविधान का पालन करे, उसकी रक्षा करे और उसे बनाए रखे।" प्रस्ताव में कुल तीन प्रमुख हस्तक्षेप और उनके तंत्र भी प्रस्तुत किए गए। पहला हस्तक्षेप स्वतंत्र मीडिया को प्रोत्साहित करके, वास्तविकता पर आधारित काउंटर नैरेटिव का निर्माण करके और सत्तारूढ़ सरकार द्वारा नियोजित मनोवैज्ञानिक हेरफेर की रणनीति का मुकाबला करके लोगों द्वारा निर्धारित कथा को बनाए रखना और उस पर कार्यकरना था।
31052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
‘वोटर्स विल मस्ट प्रीवेल’ (मतदाताओं को जीतना होगा) अभियान द्वारा जारी हेल्पलाइन नंबर, 4 जून को सुबह 7 बजे से दोपहर 12 बजे तक मतगणना प्रक्रिया में कहीं भी किसी भी तरह के उल्लंघन की रिपोर्ट करने के लिए खुला रहेगा।
Future Of Fintech In India | Evolution Of Fintech In IndiaTheUnitedIndian
Navigating the Future of Fintech in India: Insights into how AI, blockchain, and digital payments are driving unprecedented growth in India's fintech industry, redefining financial services and accessibility.
27052024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
01062024_First India Newspaper Jaipur.pdfFIRST INDIA
Find Latest India News and Breaking News these days from India on Politics, Business, Entertainment, Technology, Sports, Lifestyle and Coronavirus News in India and the world over that you can't miss. For real time update Visit our social media handle. Read First India NewsPaper in your morning replace. Visit First India.
CLICK:- https://firstindia.co.in/
#First_India_NewsPaper
In a May 9, 2024 paper, Juri Opitz from the University of Zurich, along with Shira Wein and Nathan Schneider form Georgetown University, discussed the importance of linguistic expertise in natural language processing (NLP) in an era dominated by large language models (LLMs).
The authors explained that while machine translation (MT) previously relied heavily on linguists, the landscape has shifted. “Linguistics is no longer front and center in the way we build NLP systems,” they said. With the emergence of LLMs, which can generate fluent text without the need for specialized modules to handle grammar or semantic coherence, the need for linguistic expertise in NLP is being questioned.
Welcome to the new Mizzima Weekly !
Mizzima Media Group is pleased to announce the relaunch of Mizzima Weekly. Mizzima is dedicated to helping our readers and viewers keep up to date on the latest developments in Myanmar and related to Myanmar by offering analysis and insight into the subjects that matter. Our websites and our social media channels provide readers and viewers with up-to-the-minute and up-to-date news, which we don’t necessarily need to replicate in our Mizzima Weekly magazine. But where we see a gap is in providing more analysis, insight and in-depth coverage of Myanmar, that is of particular interest to a range of readers.
HISTORY- XII-Theme 3 - Kinship, Caste and Class.pptx
When do people speak
1.
2. WHEN THE PEOPLE SPEAK:
Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation
By James S. Fishkin
Foday Sulimani, Reviewer
Fishkin takes on a subject that remains largely unexamined: how
two fundamental values of democracy—political equality and
deliberation—could be simultaneously realized. According to
Fishkin, two unstated presumptions about democracy involve
including “all” the people in the political process (political equal-
ity) and providing a basis for them to think about the issues they
decide (deliberation). Scholars would agree that political equality
and deliberation are essential conditions for democracy, but differ
on how they could be simultaneously realized in the political process.
This book proposes the use of deliberative democracy as a solution
to the challenge of including the general citizenry in politics and
policy formulation, under conditions that motivate them to really
think about the issues.
The author defines deliberative democracy as the combination
of political equality and deliberation. In deliberative democracy,
everyone’s views are equally considered under conditions that
allow participants to have face-to-face discussions that “consci-
entiously raise and respond to competing arguments so as to
arrive at considered judgments about the solutions to public
problems.” (p. 17) The process is deliberative because it provides
informative and mutually respectful discussion in which people
consider the issue on its merits. The process is democratic be-
cause it requires the equal counting of everyone’s views. However,
realizing both political equality and deliberation in combination
remains a major challenge for modern democracies. The United States
has wrestled with this challenge from the enactment of the Consti-
tution to contemporary times, when various democratic theorists
continue to offer competing visions of what true democracy entails.
Fishkin, like many other scholars, acknowledges that it is dif-
ficult to achieve both political equality and deliberation, or what he
calls inclusion and thoughtfulness. He traces this difficulty to the
manipulation of the public by political elites and also identifies
69
3. other limitations of public opinion in modern, developed societies.
In exploring how the views of the public could be heard in the
political process, Fishkin argues that many of the methods and
technologies that have been used to give voice to the public will
are manipulative, and thus are not representative of the public.
Some of these “democratic practices”—which some democratic
theorists endorse as appropriate terms of political competition
between parties and between organized interests—distort the way
public views are expressed and shaped. Consequently, they only
provide opportunities for those who are well-enough organized to
“capture” the political process and “detour democracy from the dual
aspiration to realize political equality and deliberation.” (p. 2)
Many methods and technologies that are used to give voice
to the public will distort “refined public opinion” and only serve
as a platform for special interests. The technology and culture of
the modern “persuasion industry” has made it possible for elites
to take liberties with facts and perspectives, shape opinion, and
then invoke those opinions in the name of democracy. Fishkin is
critical of the U.S. political process, which he asserts has been
“colonized by the persuasion industry.” Deliberation, which was
intended as a means through which representatives could “refine
and enlarge” or “filter” the public voice, is overshadowed by various
techniques of persuasion that shape opinion, sell candidates and
policies to constituents, or mobilize voting in ways that are manip-
ulative. The author agrees that democracy needs to preserve ample
room for freedom of thought and expression and that persuasion
is a natural activity within that protected space. But he also suggests
that we need to be cognizant of the fact that manipulation takes
place within that space as well. The danger to democracy occurs
when freedom of thought and expression are used to manipulate
public opinion.
Fishkin further argues that we have a political system in which
it is difficult to effectively motivate citizens to become informed
about the political process. We have a general citizenry that lacks
knowledge, a highly partisan political environment, and a mass
society that is vulnerable to manipulation. Fishkin states that a well-
informed citizenry that produces “informed, considered opinions
for politics and policy is a public good.” (p. 7) However, given the
70
4. aforementioned limitations, society contends with an underinformed
and nondeliberative mass public, thus making it difficult to achieve
both inclusion and thoughtfulness.
Fishkin identifies two types of institutions that try to give
voice to public opinion. One type of institution (as seen in mass
democracies) gives a snapshot of “raw public opinion”—one in
which the public is usually not very informed, engaged, and attentive.
Another sort of institution (as seen through representative institu-
tions) gives expression to “refined public opinion”—opinion that
has “been tested by the consideration of competing arguments and
information conscientiously offered by others who hold contrast-
ing views.” (p. 14) The political systems in America and in most
developed democracies have veered toward greater raw public
opinion as opposed to refined or more deliberative views. However,
using raw public opinion as a gauge in determining policy options
is a problem for democracy because the public’s consent is only
valuable when obtained under conditions when the people are
thoroughly informed about the decisions they are making. According
to Fishkin, the way out of this dilemma is to create a more informed,
engaged, and attentive public opinion that is also generally shared
by the entire mass public.
Fishkin proposes his concept of “deliberative polls” as the best
method to ensure political equality, inclusion, and deliberation.
In other words, Fishkin is arguing that deliberative polling is the
best method for deliberative democracy. In deliberative polls, a
population is randomly selected and asked to respond to a telephone
survey, after which they are convened together for many hours of
deliberation in small groups and in plenary sessions. At the plenary
sessions, competing candidates, experts, or policy makers respond
to questions developed in the small groups. At the end of the
process, participants fill out the same questionnaire as the one
they had been given when they were first contacted. It is assumed
that a randomly selected population not only captures the raw
opinion of the general public, but also, through the deliberative
process, reflects diverse views that help them refine their opinion.
In areas where deliberative polling has been tested, answers to the
post-deliberation questionnaire often show shifts in the opinions of
participants. Fishkin argues that the random selection of participants
71
5. addresses the issue of political equality, while the deliberation
phase adds thoughtfulness to the process. But does this process
provide the prerequisites of deliberative democracy?
Four questions that are central to deliberative democracy include:
How inclusive is it? How thoughtful is it? If and when this
combination is achieved, what effects does it have? and, Under
what social and political conditions can any of this be accom-
plished? In experiments that span several continents, Fishkin has,
over the last twenty years, used deliberative polling to test its viability
in deliberative democracy. Experiments in Texas, Rome, Thailand,
Denmark, Australia, and China involved the public voice in
addressing tough public policies. In Texas, for example, a series of
deliberative polls (1996-2007) sponsored by electric utility compa-
nies and the Texas Public Utility Commission resulted in a series
of decisions about wind power and conservation. This has trans-
formed the state from last to first in the use of wind power. In
China, where such a project would seem unlikely, deliberative
polling has helped the government of Wenling City in Zeguo
township make key decisions —with active public input—about
what infrastructure to build.
In an era when policy elites are thought to be insulated from
the wishes of the public, deliberative polling offers an innovative
way of coming to public judgment. Questions remain about the
practicality of this model in societies that are conflict-ridden, highly
partisan, or have language barriers. Although Fishkin supplies data
on experiments conducted in areas that face such challenges, such
as Australia, Bulgaria, and Northern Ireland, we need further empiri-
cal evidence from areas where the social and political conditions
make inclusion and deliberation virtually impossible. Australia
was able to address critical issues affecting the Aborigines and
other indigenous people through deliberative polling. In Northern
Ireland, a deeply divided society, deliberative polling helped a
scientifically random sample of parents confront issues of possible
educational cooperation between the communities. However, these
are communities that were ready to face tough challenges and make
tough choices for the public good. What about communities that
aren’t ready? How effective is deliberative polling in societies that
are highly partisan; where political elites take liberties with facts and
72
6. perspectives, where people have seemingly lost the capacity to think
critically through issues, and where journalists have failed to be the
gatekeepers of social values?
Deliberative polling offers a rewarding promise for small
communities that attempt to make it part of the political process,
and where the general citizenry sees the need for serious deliberation
in addressing intractable problems. It has been tested in many areas
with positive results, but questions remain about its practicality in
getting an entire nation involved in a deliberative process, or its use
in many regions around the world where the desire for political
equality and engagement is hardly an option.
73