Abstract
This paper argues in favor of the epistemic properties of inclusiveness in the context of democratic deliberative assemblies and derives the implications of this argument in terms of the epistemically superior mode of selection of representatives. The paper makes the general case that, all other things being equal and under some reasonable assumptions, more is smarter. When applied to deliberative assemblies of representatives, where there is an upper limit to the number of people that can be included in the group, the argument translates into a defense of a specific selection mode of participants: random selection.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barnett, A., & Carty, P. (2008) [1998]. The Athenian option: Radical reform for the house of lords (luck of the draw: Sortition and public policy). Charlottesville, VA: Imprint Academic.
Bohman J. (2006) Deliberative democracy and the epistemic benefits of diversity. Episteme 3(3): 175–191
Carson L., Martin B. (1999) Random selection in politics (Luck of the draw: Sortition and public policy). Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT
Delli Carpini M. X., Keeter S. (1996) What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press, New Haven
Duxbury N. (1999) Random justice: On lotteries and legal decision-making. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Elster, J. (1989). Solomonic judgments: Studies in the limits of rationality. Cambridge/Paris: Cambridge University Press/Editions de la Maison des sciences de l’homme.
Farrar C., Fishkin J., Green D., List C., Luskin R., Paluck E. L. (2010) Disaggregating deliberation’s effects: An experiment within a deliberative poll. British Journal of Political Science 40: 333–347
Fishkin J. (2009) When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Follet, M. P. (1942) [1925]. Constructive conflict. In H. C. Metcalf & L. Urwick (Eds.), Dynamic administration: The collected papers of Mary Parker Follett (pp. 30–49). New York: Harper.
Gardner H. (1983) Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. Basic, New York
Goodin, R., & List, C. (2009). Epistemic aspects of representative government. Working Paper. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/umccc/goodin.pdf. Accessed 10 Sep 2011.
Goodwin B. (1992) Justice by lottery. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago
Habermas, J. (1984) [1977]. The theory of communicative action. Vol. 1. Reason and the rationalization of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press.
Hong L., Page S. (2001) Problem solving by heterogeneous agents. Journal of Economic Theory 97(1): 123–163
Hong L., Page S. (2004) Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101(46): 16385–16389
Landemore, H. (2007). Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University.
Landemore, H. (2012a). Democratic reason: The mechanisms of collective intelligence in politics. In H. Landemore & J. Elster (Eds.), Collective wisdom: Principles and mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press (forthcoming).
Landemore, H. (2012b). Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press (forthcoming).
Landemore, H., & Page, S. (2011, September 4). Deliberation and disagreement: Problem solving, prediction, and positive dissensus. Paper presented at the seventh European congress of analytic philosophy (ECAP 7), Milan.
Leib E. (2005) Deliberative democracy in America: A proposal for a popular branch. Pennsylvania State University Press, Pennsylvania
Lupia A. (2006) How elitism undermines the study of voter competence. Critical Review 18(1–3): 217–232
Luskin R. C. (1987) Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science 31: 856–899
Mackie G. (2012) Rational ignorance and beyond. In: Landemore H., Elster J. (eds) Collective wisdom: Principles and mechanisms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (forthcoming)
Manin B. (1997) The principles of representative government. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Manin, B. (2005, October 13). Democratic deliberation: Why we should promote debate rather than discussion. Paper delivered at the program in ethics and public affairs seminar, Princeton University.
Mansbridge J. (1999) Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’. The Journal of Politics 61: 628–657
Mansbridge, J. (2009). Deliberative and non-deliberative negotiations. (April 6): HKS, Working Paper No. RWP09-010. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1380433 Accessed 10 Sep 2011.
Mansbridge J. (2010) Deliberative polling as the gold standard. Good Society Journal 19(1): 55–61
Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Føllesdal, A., Fung, A., et al. (2010). The place of self-interest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy (forthcoming).
McCormick J. (2011) Machiavellian democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Mercier H., Landemore H. (2012) Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology 33(2): 243–258
Mercier H., Sperber D. (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34: 57–111
Mill, J. S. (2010) [1861]. Considerations on representative government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mouffe C. (1999) Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism?. Social Research 66: 745–758
Mueller D. C., Tollison R. D., Willet T. D. (2011) Representative democracy via random selection. In: Stone P. (Ed.), Lotteries in public life. A reader. Imprint Academic, Exeter
Mulgan R. G. (1984) Lot as a democratic device of selection. Review of Politics 46: 539–560
Ober J. (2008) Democracy and knowledge: Innovation and knowledge in classical Athens. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
O’Leary K. (2006) Saving democracy: A plan for real democracy in America. Stanford University Press, Stanford
Page, S. (2007). Diversity trumps ability theorem. In The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies (pp. 131–174). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pitkin H. F. (1967) The concept of representation. University of California, Berkeley
Rehfeld A. (2005) The concept of constituency: Political representation, democratic legitimacy and institutional design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Salovey, P., & Mayer, J. D. [1990] (1998). Emotional intelligence. In K. Oatley, J. M. Jenkins, & N. L. Stein (Eds.), Human emotions: A reader (pp. 313–320). Oxford: Blackwell.
Sintomer Y. (2007) Le Pouvoir au Peuple: Jury citoyens, tirage au sort, et démocratie participative. La Découverte, Paris
Sternberg R. J. (1985) Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press, New York
Stich S. (1988) Reflective equilibrium, analytic epistemology and the problem of cognitive diversity. Synthese 74: 391–413
(2007) Why lotteries are just. The Journal of Political Philosophy 15(3): 276–295
(2009) The logic of random selection. Political Theory 37: 375–397
Stone, P. (Ed.). (2010) The luck of the draw: The role of lotteries in decision-making. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Stone, P. (Ed.). (2011) Lotteries in public life. A reader. Imprint Academic, Exeter
Sunstein C. (2002) The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy 10(2): 175–195
Sunstein C. (2003) Why societies need dissent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
Sutherland K. (2008) A people’s parliament: A (revised) blueprint for a very English revolution. Academic Imprint, Charlottesville, VA
Tetlock P. (2005) Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know?. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ
Thaler R. H., Sunstein C. R. (2008) Nudge: Improving decisions about wealth, health, and happiness. Caravan Books, Ann Arbor, MI
Warren, M. E., Pearse, H. (Eds.). (2008) Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia citizens’ assembly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Watson W., Kumar K., Michaelsen L. (1993) Cultural diversity’s impact on interaction process and performance: Comparing homogeneous and diverse task groups. Academic Management Journal 36: 590–602
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Landemore, H. Deliberation, cognitive diversity, and democratic inclusiveness: an epistemic argument for the random selection of representatives. Synthese 190, 1209–1231 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0062-6
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0062-6