Post by schandnasss on Mar 11, 2023 3:07:29 GMT -5
For this reason it cannot be true of all the people considered individually that the majority of the sample is like them . But if this is so, in what sense can we say that the participants in the sample are their representatives ? If the majority of the sample is neither like nor accountable to them, then what is the justification for expecting or requiring non-participating citizens to simply blindly trust this majority ?? Since citizens have not selected their representatives to participate in the mini-public, none of them have any particular reason to assume that the majority or minority recommendations are what they would have thought if they had informed themselves. and they would have thought on their own.
Unlike the standard representation selection model in C Level Contact List citizens choose their representatives based on their own interests, values, and political goals, when it comes to mini-publics perhaps the argument is not that citizens should trust the majority because she is like them , but they should trust her because she is like most of the people14. But it is? The illusion of democracy or "Beware of usurpers!" Before the deliberative experience, it is trivially true to affirm that those who participate in the mini-public are likethe people in the sense that the perspectives of the citizens in the random sample accurately reflect the views of the population as a whole.
This is why regular polls can be used (more or less reliably) to find out the opinions of the population, despite the fact that only a handful of randomly selected citizens are actually interviewed. However, once the deliberative filter is implemented –which is the main objective of organizing deliberative mini-publics–, the opinions of the participants undergo significant and sometimes drastic transformations. But, precisely for this reason, to claim that the voice of those who participate in the mini-publics after the deliberation is the voice of the people would be a clear case of usurpation, especially in those cases in which it is explicitly stated thatthey disagree with the royal people.
Unlike the standard representation selection model in C Level Contact List citizens choose their representatives based on their own interests, values, and political goals, when it comes to mini-publics perhaps the argument is not that citizens should trust the majority because she is like them , but they should trust her because she is like most of the people14. But it is? The illusion of democracy or "Beware of usurpers!" Before the deliberative experience, it is trivially true to affirm that those who participate in the mini-public are likethe people in the sense that the perspectives of the citizens in the random sample accurately reflect the views of the population as a whole.
This is why regular polls can be used (more or less reliably) to find out the opinions of the population, despite the fact that only a handful of randomly selected citizens are actually interviewed. However, once the deliberative filter is implemented –which is the main objective of organizing deliberative mini-publics–, the opinions of the participants undergo significant and sometimes drastic transformations. But, precisely for this reason, to claim that the voice of those who participate in the mini-publics after the deliberation is the voice of the people would be a clear case of usurpation, especially in those cases in which it is explicitly stated thatthey disagree with the royal people.