Debating Democracy: Do We Need More or Less? (Debating Ethics)

Review\n"Brennan, in particular, is quite good at presenting complex ideas in a straightforward, accessible way. He uses examples well to explain the real costs of giving equal power to people with unequal knowledge, as in the case of Brexit. Landemore...presents thought--provoking suggestions, such as the increased use of randomly selected citizen assemblies. Both authors, from their very different perspectives, present intriguing ideas about how people might influence decision--making other than through the representative systems Americans are used to." -- J. Heyrman, Berea College, CHOICE\n"Could democracy be a mistake? Since it gives an equal vote to the wise and the irrational alike, how well can it really be expected to perform? Couldn't experts do better, and on such momentous matters shouldn't we go for the best? This challenge is traditional, but also currently hot inside and outside academia. As against some others Jason Brennan and Hélène Landemore agree on the problem's fundamental importance, but from there much else is up for debate. As two leading contributors to the lively literature on these questions, Brennan and Landemore deliver a vividly written introduction that will appeal to students, and a cutting-edge debate of importance to scholars as well." -- David Estlund, Lombardo Family Professor of Philosophy, Brown University\n"The future of democracy is one of the great issues of our time. In Debating Democracy, two of the world's leading experts on the subject debate whether the cure for democracy's ills is more democracy DS as Helene Landemore argues DS or whether we instead need tighter constraints on the power of democratic majorities, as Jason Brennan contends. Both defend their respective positions with great insight and skill. Scholars and laypeople alike can learn much from this outstanding work. It's hard to imagine a more timely book than this one!" -- Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University\nAround the world, faith in democracy is falling. Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela have moved from flawed democracies to authoritarian regimes. Brexit and the rise of far-right parties show that even stable Western democracies are struggling. Partisanship and mutual distrust are increasing. What, if anything, should we do about these problems? In this accessible work, leading philosophers Jason Brennan and Hélène Landemore debate whether the solution lies in having less democracy or more.\nBrennan argues that democracy has systematic flaws, and that democracy does not and cannot work the way most of us commonly assume. He argues the best solution is to limit democracy's scope and to experiment with certain voting systems that can overcome democracy's problems.\nLandemore argues that democracy, defined as a regime that distributes power equally and inclusively, is a better way to generate good governance than oligarchies of knowledge. To her, the crisis of "representative democracy" comes in large part from its glaring democratic deficits. The solution is not just more democracy, but a better kind, which Landemore theorizes as "open democracy."

Politics & Social Sciences

Brennan, Jason

Landemore, Hélène

Philosophy

Oxford University Press

Review\n"Could democracy be a mistake? Since it gives an equal vote to the wise and the irrational alike, how well can it really be expected to perform? Couldn't experts do better, and on such momentous matters shouldn't we go for the best? This challenge is traditional, but also currently hot inside and outside academia. As against some others Jason Brennan and Hélène Landemore agree on the problem's fundamental importance, but from there much else is up for debate. As two leading contributors to the lively literature on these questions, Brennan and Landemore deliver a vividly written introduction that will appeal to students, and a cutting-edge debate of importance to scholars as well." -- David Estlund, Lombardo Family Professor of Philosophy, Brown University\n"The future of democracy is one of the great issues of our time. In Debating Democracy, two of the world's leading experts on the subject debate whether the cure for democracy's ills is more democracy DS as Helene Landemore argues DS or whether we instead need tighter constraints on the power of democratic majorities, as Jason Brennan contends. Both defend their respective positions with great insight and skill. Scholars and laypeople alike can learn much from this outstanding work. It's hard to imagine a more timely book than this one!" -- Ilya Somin, Professor of Law, George Mason University\nAround the world, faith in democracy is falling. Russia, Turkey, and Venezuela have moved from flawed democracies to authoritarian regimes. Brexit and the rise of far-right parties show that even stable Western democracies are struggling. Partisanship and mutual distrust are increasing. What, if anything, should we do about these problems? In this accessible work, leading philosophers Jason Brennan and Hélène Landemore debate whether the solution lies in having less democracy or more.\nBrennan argues that democracy has systematic flaws, and that democracy does not and cannot work the way most of us commonly assume. He argues the best solution is to limit democracy's scope and to experiment with certain voting systems that can overcome democracy's problems.\nLandemore argues that democracy, defined as a regime that distributes power equally and inclusively, is a better way to generate good governance than oligarchies of knowledge. To her, the crisis of "representative democracy" comes in large part from its glaring democratic deficits. The solution is not just more democracy, but a better kind, which Landemore theorizes as "open democracy."

Individual decision making can often be wrong due to misinformation, impulses, or biases. Collective decision making, on the other hand, can be surprisingly accurate. In Democratic Reason, Hélène Landemore demonstrates that the very factors behind the superiority of collective decision making add up to a strong case for democracy. She shows that the processes and procedures of democratic decision making form a cognitive system that ensures that decisions taken by the many are more likely to be right than decisions taken by the few. Democracy as a form of government is therefore valuable not only because it is legitimate and just, but also because it is smart.Landemore considers how the argument plays out with respect to two main mechanisms of democratic politics: inclusive deliberation and majority rule. In deliberative settings, the truth-tracking properties of deliberation are enhanced more by inclusiveness than by individual competence. Landemore explores this idea in the contexts of representative democracy and the selection of representatives. She also discusses several models for the "wisdom of crowds" channeled by majority rule, examining the trade-offs between inclusiveness and individual competence in voting. When inclusive deliberation and majority rule are combined, they beat less inclusive methods, in which one person or a small group decide. Democratic Reason thus establishes the superiority of democracy as a way of making decisions for the common good.

Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many

Business & Money

Management & Leadership

Princeton University Press

Individual decision making can often be wrong due to misinformation, impulses, or biases. Collective decision making, on the other hand, can be surprisingly accurate. In Democratic Reason, Hélène Landemore demonstrates that the very factors behind the superiority of collective decision making add up to a strong case for democracy. She shows that the processes and procedures of democratic decision making form a cognitive system that ensures that decisions taken by the many are more likely to be right than decisions taken by the few. Democracy as a form of government is therefore valuable not only because it is legitimate and just, but also because it is smart.
 Landemore considers how the argument plays out with respect to two main mechanisms of democratic politics: inclusive deliberation and majority rule. In deliberative settings, the truth-tracking properties of deliberation are enhanced more by inclusiveness than by individual competence. Landemore explores this idea in the contexts of representative democracy and the selection of representatives. She also discusses several models for the "wisdom of crowds" channeled by majority rule, examining the trade-offs between inclusiveness and individual competence in voting. When inclusive deliberation and majority rule are combined, they beat less inclusive methods, in which one person or a small group decide. Democratic Reason thus establishes the superiority of democracy as a way of making decisions for the common good.

Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century

"Open Democracy envisions what true government by mass leadership could look like."--Nathan Heller, New Yorker How a new model of democracy that opens up power to ordinary citizens could strengthen inclusiveness, responsiveness, and accountability in modern societies To the ancient Greeks, democracy meant gathering in public and debating laws set by a randomly selected assembly of several hundred citizens. To the Icelandic Vikings, democracy meant meeting every summer in a field to discuss issues until consensus was reached. Our contemporary representative democracies are very different. Modern parliaments are gated and guarded, and it seems as if only certain people--with the right suit, accent, wealth, and connections--are welcome. Diagnosing what is wrong with representative government and aiming to recover some of the lost openness of ancient democracies, Open Democracy presents a new paradigm of democracy in which power is genuinely accessible to ordinary citizens. Hélène Landemore favors the ideal of "representing and being represented in turn" over direct-democracy approaches. Supporting a fresh nonelectoral understanding of democratic representation, Landemore recommends centering political institutions around the "open mini-public"--a large, jury-like body of randomly selected citizens gathered to define laws and policies for the polity, in connection with the larger public. She also defends five institutional principles as the foundations of an open democracy: participatory rights, deliberation, the majoritarian principle, democratic representation, and transparency. Open Democracy demonstrates that placing ordinary citizens, rather than elites, at the heart of democratic power is not only the true meaning of a government of, by, and for the people, but also feasible and, today more than ever, urgently needed.

Review\n"Finalist for the North American Society for Social Philosophy Book Award"\n"Open Democracy envisions what true government by mass leadership could look like. Her model is based on the simple idea that, if government by the people is a goal, the people ought to do the governing."---Nathan Heller, New Yorker\n"A great defence of both sortition and deliberation as complements to representative democracy."---Pratap Bhanu Mehta, Open Magazine\n"A bold exploration of how we can move beyond a purely electoral conception of democratic representation. Using normative democratic theory and real-world examples of innovations in citizen representation, Hélène Landemore argues for a vision of democracy that is more faithful to popular rule, more likely to tap into democratic reason, and more stable and durable than electoral democracy."---Erica Yu, Erasmus Journal for Philosophy and Economics\n"Ambitious. . . . A scheme that breaks with two liberal-democratic institutions that are usually taken for granted: elections and political parties."---Jan-Werner Mueller, Project Syndicate\n"[Landemore] argues that we need a new, more inclusive system of governance that is less elitist and more participatory to cure what ails democracy." ― The Nation\n"A fascinating, wide-ranging book."---Rachael Walsh, International Journal of Constitutional Law\n"Important."---Christopher Kutz, Los Angeles Review of Books\n"Open Democracy envisions what true government by mass leadership could look like."―Nathan Heller, New Yorker 
How a new model of democracy that opens up power to ordinary citizens could strengthen inclusiveness, responsiveness, and accountability in modern societies\nTo the ancient Greeks, democracy meant gathering in public and debating laws set by a randomly selected assembly of several hundred citizens. To the Icelandic Vikings, democracy meant meeting every summer in a field to discuss issues until consensus was reached. Our contemporary representative democracies are very different. Modern parliaments are gated and guarded, and it seems as if only certain people―with the right suit, accent, wealth, and connections―are welcome. Diagnosing what is wrong with representative government and aiming to recover some of the lost openness of ancient democracies, Open Democracy presents a new paradigm of democracy in which power is genuinely accessible to ordinary citizens.\nHélène Landemore favors the ideal of “representing and being represented in turn” over direct-democracy approaches. Supporting a fresh nonelectoral understanding of democratic representation, Landemore recommends centering political institutions around the “open mini-public”―a large, jury-like body of randomly selected citizens gathered to define laws and policies for the polity, in connection with the larger public. She also defends five institutional principles as the foundations of an open democracy: participatory rights, deliberation, the majoritarian principle, democratic representation, and transparency.\nOpen Democracy demonstrates that placing ordinary citizens, rather than elites, at the heart of democratic power is not only the true meaning of a government of, by, and for the people, but also feasible and, today more than ever, urgently needed.

James Madison wrote, "Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob." The contributors to this volume discuss and for the most part challenge this claim by considering conditions under which many minds can be wiser than one. With backgrounds in economics, cognitive science, political science, law, and history, the authors consider information markets, the Internet, jury debates, democratic deliberation, and the use of diversity as mechanisms for improving collective decisions. At the same time, they consider voter irrationality and paradoxes of aggregation as possibly undermining the wisdom of groups. Implicitly or explicitly, the volume also offers guidance and warnings to institutional designers.

Collective Wisdom: Principles And Mechanisms

Cambridge University Press

See the best price to sell, buy, or rent books by Landemore, Hélène. BookScouter helps to compare book prices from 25+ online bookstores and 30+ buyback vendors with a single search.

Books by Landemore, Hélène

See the best price to sell, buy, or rent books by Landemore, Hélène. BookScouter helps to compare book prices from 25+ online bookstores and 30+ buyback vendors with a single search.

Debating Democracy: Do We Need More or Less? (Debating Ethics)

Debating Democracy: Do We Need More or Less? (Debating Ethics)

Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many

Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many

Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century

Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century

Collective Wisdom: Principles And Mechanisms