Abstract
AbstractWhile there is much to command about Cheneval and el‐Wakil's () proposal in favor of a nuanced and fine‐grained approach to popular vote processes as well as their specific defense of optional, bottom‐up, and binding referendums as democratic supplements to our existing representative institutions, I argue that their approach does not pay sufficient attention to the pre‐voting phase of the process that has to do with the laundering of raw preferences into generalized and informed ones, namely deliberation. I offer two suggestions to render the voting occuring in referenda more deliberative, namely the pre‐voting use of what I call “open mini‐publics” and that of Citizens’ Initiative Review. I also defend the use of top‐down and mandatory referenda in the context of a more open and technologically empowered deliberative democracy.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
