Abstract
Informed consideration of conflicting arguments regarding public issues is assumed to be central to citizens’ democratic decision making. In this regard, two aspects of political reasoning are crucial: knowledge of relevant facts and the consideration of opposing views and arguments. Drawing on The Healthcare Dialogue Project, a multi-wave study involving several online deliberations and surveys, I examine the relationship between these two requisites of political decision making, finding that well informed citizens tend to take a slanted set of arguments into consideration. I then estimate “fully informed” preferences, and “fully considered” preferences, which respectively correct for political ignorance and for narrow and imbalanced considerations, finding that fully informed and fully considered opinions diverge in important ways. Finally, I present evidence that actual deliberation moves policy opinions towards the statistically imputed fully considered preferences, but not towards fully informed preferences.
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.
