Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Deliberation, cognitive diversity, and democratic inclusiveness: an epistemic argument for the random selection of representatives

  • Published:
Synthese Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carson L., Martin B. (1999) Random selection in politics (Luck of the draw: Sortition and public policy). Praeger Publishers, Westport, CT

    Google Scholar 

  • Delli Carpini M. X., Keeter S. (1996) What Americans know about politics and why it matters. Yale University Press, New Haven

    Google Scholar 

  • Duxbury N. (1999) Random justice: On lotteries and legal decision-making. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin J. (2009) When the people speak: Deliberative democracy and public consultation. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Lupia A. (2006) How elitism undermines the study of voter competence. Critical Review 18(1–3): 217–232

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luskin R. C. (1987) Measuring political sophistication. American Journal of Political Science 31: 856–899

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mackie G. (2012) Rational ignorance and beyond. In: Landemore H., Elster J. (eds) Collective wisdom: Principles and mechanisms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (forthcoming)

    Google Scholar 

  • Manin B. (1997) The principles of representative government. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mercier H., Landemore H. (2012) Reasoning is for arguing: Understanding the successes and failures of deliberation. Political Psychology 33(2): 243–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mercier H., Sperber D. (2011) Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 34: 57–111

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Mulgan R. G. (1984) Lot as a democratic device of selection. Review of Politics 46: 539–560

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ober J. (2008) Democracy and knowledge: Innovation and knowledge in classical Athens. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Leary K. (2006) Saving democracy: A plan for real democracy in America. Stanford University Press, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Rehfeld A. (2005) The concept of constituency: Political representation, democratic legitimacy and institutional design. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Sternberg R. J. (1985) Beyond IQ: A triarchic theory of human intelligence. Cambridge University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Stich S. (1988) Reflective equilibrium, analytic epistemology and the problem of cognitive diversity. Synthese 74: 391–413

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • (2007) Why lotteries are just. The Journal of Political Philosophy 15(3): 276–295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • (2009) The logic of random selection. Political Theory 37: 375–397

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stone, P. (Ed.). (2010) The luck of the draw: The role of lotteries in decision-making. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, P. (Ed.). (2011) Lotteries in public life. A reader. Imprint Academic, Exeter

    Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C. (2002) The law of group polarization. Journal of Political Philosophy 10(2): 175–195

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sunstein C. (2003) Why societies need dissent. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland K. (2008) A people’s parliament: A (revised) blueprint for a very English revolution. Academic Imprint, Charlottesville, VA

    Google Scholar 

  • Tetlock P. (2005) Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know?. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ

    Google Scholar 

  • Thaler R. H., Sunstein C. R. (2008) Nudge: Improving decisions about wealth, health, and happiness. Caravan Books, Ann Arbor, MI

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. E., Pearse, H. (Eds.). (2008) Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia citizens’ assembly. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Yale University, 115 Prospect Street, New Haven, CT, 06511, USA

    Hélène Landemore

Authors
  1. Hélène Landemore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hélène Landemore.

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-012-0062-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation