IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/polsoc/v41y2013i2p253-281.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Making Direct Democracy Deliberative through Random Assemblies

Author

Listed:
  • John Gastil
  • Robert Richards

Abstract

Direct-democratic processes have won popular support but fall far short of the standards of deliberative democracy. Initiative and referendum processes furnish citizens with insufficient information about policy problems, inadequate choices among policy solutions, flawed criteria for choosing among such solutions, and few opportunities for reflection on those choices prior to decision making. We suggest a way to make direct democracy more deliberative by grafting randomly selected citizen assemblies onto existing institutions and practices. After reviewing the problems that beset modern direct-democratic elections and the long history of randomly selected citizen assemblies, we propose five different varieties of randomly constituted citizen bodies—Priority Conferences, Design Panels, Citizens’ Assemblies, Citizens’ Initiative Reviews, and Policy Juries. After selecting members through stratified random sampling of citizens, each of these assemblies would operate at a different stage of the legislative process, from initial problem identification through approval of a finished ballot measure. Highly structured procedures guided by professional moderators and featuring expert testimony on policy and legal matters would help to ensure deliberative quality, and careful institutional designs would make each body politically powerful. In the end, these citizen bodies would be likely to address the deliberative deficit of direct democracy and better achieve the public’s desired policy objectives.

Suggested Citation

  • John Gastil & Robert Richards, 2013. "Making Direct Democracy Deliberative through Random Assemblies," Politics & Society, , vol. 41(2), pages 253-281, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:41:y:2013:i:2:p:253-281
    DOI: 10.1177/0032329213483109
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032329213483109
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0032329213483109?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Sanskriti Menon & Janette Hartz-Karp, 2019. "Linking Traditional ‘Organic’ and ‘Induced’ Public Participation with Deliberative Democracy: Experiments in Pune, India," Journal of Education for Sustainable Development, , vol. 13(2), pages 193-214, September.
    2. Paul Agu Igwe, 2022. "The Paradox of Brexit and the Consequences of Taking Back Control," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(2), pages 1-15, April.
    3. Carlos Rico Motos, 2019. "‘Let the Citizens Fix This Mess!’ Podemos’ Claim for Participatory Democracy in Spain," Politics and Governance, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(2), pages 187-197.
    4. Simon Pek, 2019. "Rekindling Union Democracy Through the Use of Sortition," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 155(4), pages 1033-1051, April.
    5. Hoicka, Christina E. & Lowitzsch, Jens & Brisbois, Marie Claire & Kumar, Ankit & Ramirez Camargo, Luis, 2021. "Implementing a just renewable energy transition: Policy advice for transposing the new European rules for renewable energy communities," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 156(C).
    6. Alpa Shah, 2021. "What if We Selected our Leaders by Lottery? Democracy by Sortition, Liberal Elections and Communist Revolutionaries," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 52(4), pages 687-728, July.
    7. Harri Raisio & Pirkko Vartiainen, 2015. "Accelerating the public’s learning curve on wicked policy issues: results from deliberative forums on euthanasia," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 48(3), pages 339-361, September.
    8. Anatol Itten & Niek Mouter, 2022. "When Digital Mass Participation Meets Citizen Deliberation: Combining Mini- and Maxi-Publics in Climate Policy-Making," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(8), pages 1-25, April.
    9. Kim Strandberg & Kim Backström & Janne Berg & Thomas Karv, 2021. "Democratically Sustainable Local Development? The Outcomes of Mixed Deliberation on a Municipal Merger on Participants’ Social Trust, Political Trust, and Political Efficacy," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-17, June.
    10. Ank Michels & Harmen Binnema, 2018. "Deepening and Connecting Democratic Processes. The Opportunities and Pitfalls of Mini-Publics in Renewing Democracy," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(11), pages 1-13, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:polsoc:v:41:y:2013:i:2:p:253-281. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.