CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 59Political Philosophy and EthicsPolitical Theory and DemocracyPhilosophical Ethics and Theory

Reconceiving the democratic boundary problem

Open access
Miller, David·2020·Philosophy Compass
DOI 10.1111/phc3.12707
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The democratic boundary problem arises because it appears that the units within which democratic decision procedures will operate cannot themselves be constituted democratically. The study argues that setting the boundaries of democracy involves attending simultaneously to three variables: domain (where and to whom do decisions apply), constituency (who is entitled to be included in the deciding body) and scope (which issues should be on the decision agenda). Most of the existing literature has focussed narrowly on the constituency question, endorsing either the All‐Affected Interests Principle or the All Subjected Principle, but neither is satisfactory as a general solution. In particular, the former fails to explain why having interests at stake in a decision necessarily gives you the right to participate in making it, and the latter, although more plausible on that count, assumes that the domain and scope issues have already been settled. To make progress, we need to bring democratic values to bear on the boundary problem. The units we favour should be those that are likely to promote political equality and solidarity among members of the demos. Although this approach will often justify existing territorial states as sites of democracy, it can also generate arguments for making boundary changes along one or other dimension.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The democratic boundary problem should be reconceived as multidimensional, involving not only who is included (constituency) but also where decisions apply (domain) and which issues are decided (scope). Miller argues that neither the All-Affected Interests Principle nor the All-Subjected Principle alone solves the problem, and that boundary drawing should be guided by democratic values of political equality and solidarity.

Key findings

  • The boundary problem has three interconnected dimensions: domain, constituency, and scope; existing literature has focused narrowly on constituency.
  • The All-Affected Interests Principle (AAIP) fails as a general solution because having interests at stake does not necessarily give a right to participate, as shown by cases such as appointment decisions and firms bidding for a government contract.
  • The All-Subjected Principle (ASP) is generally a better answer to the constituency question than AAIP, but it assumes that domain and scope issues have already been settled and may be too restrictive in cases such as a residents’ association campaign.
  • To make progress, boundary drawing should promote political equality and solidarity; this will often justify existing territorial states as sites of democracy, but can also generate arguments for changing boundaries along one or more dimensions.

Methods

  • Conceptual and normative analysis in political philosophy, not an empirical study.
  • Reviews and critiques prominent principles in the boundary-problem literature, especially AAIP and ASP, using illustrative examples.
  • Proposes a multidimensional framework and evaluates boundary arrangements by their likely effects on political equality and solidarity within the demos.

Limitations

  • Stated in the paper: for reasons of space, Miller leaves aside the vexed question of what it means to be affected by a decision.
  • Stated in the paper: he does not claim that ASP taken alone adequately solves the boundary problem.
  • Evident from the text: the argument is abstract and normative, with no empirical data, sample, or systematic case comparison; it also notes that implications depend on contested beliefs about the sources of solidarity.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/phc3.12707

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

3 of 26 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged

  • Interpretationcitation

    Members of the demos should have an equal opportunity to influence the decisions reached.

    “Beyond this, they should have an equal opportunity to influence the decisions reached (see Erman, 2014, pp. 539-42;Song, 2012, pp. 45-46; for a longer discussion of the role that the idea of equal influence plays in justifying democracy, see; Kolodny, 2014).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Erman, 2014 source
    • cites Song, 2012 source
    • cites Kolodny, 2014 source
  • Interpretationcitation

    The political equality argument will often speak in favour of existing territorial states as sites of democracy, since it is within such states that the interlinking of interests supporting equality is most likely to be found.

    “Such cases aside, the political equality argument will often speak in favour of existing territorial states as sites of democracy, since it is within such states that we are most likely to see the interlinking of interests that supports equality (see Song, 2012, pp. 58-62).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Song, 2012 source
  • Interpretationreasoning

    The boundary problem should be reconceived as inherently multidimensional.

    “My first proposal for reconceiving the problem, therefore, is that we should think of it as inherently multidimensional in the way just explained.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Interpretationreasoning

    Where basic interests are linked in the way described, there is no reason to expect a consolidated majority to emerge and dominate the remainder of the demos.

    “Where basic interests are linked in this way, we have no reason to expect a consolidated majority emerging to dominate the remainder of the demos.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Interpretationreasoning

    Dahl's formulation of the All-Affected Interests Principle implicitly assumes that the domain question has already been resolved.

    “Notice that this formulation, by referring to 'decisions of a government', implicitly assumes that the domain question has already been resolved, since by 'a government' Dahl clearly intends a body with a fixed territorial jurisdiction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dahl, 1970

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 39
  • May combine two claims. 16
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 1

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    AAIP seems to indicate that ideally the decision-making body should be constituted afresh for each new decision, since a different set of interests will be at stake.

    “Contrast here, the approach suggested by AAIP, which, as critics have pointed out, seems to indicate that ideally the decision-making body should be constituted afresh for each new decision, since a different set of interests will be at stake (Song, 2012, pp. 56-58;Whelan, 1983, pp. 18-19).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Song, 2012 source
    • cites Whelan, 1983

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The term 'subject' is ambiguous: it could mean being legally bound to follow the laws a government issues, or being subject to institutions with the capacity to enforce the law, i.e., being coerced to obey.

    “As Beckman points out, the term is ambiguous: It could mean being legally bound to follow the laws that the government issues; or it could mean being subject to institutions with the capacity to enforce the law, in other words being coerced to obey (Beckman, 2014, pp. 255-258; see also; Goodin, 2016, p. 370).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Beckman, 2014 source
    • cites Goodin, 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    The relevant condition is a 'common world' in which the fulfilment of all or nearly all of the fundamental interests of each person is connected with the fulfilment of all or nearly all of the fundamental interests of every other person.

    “Christiano expresses this condition in terms of creating a 'common world…in which the fulfilment of all or nearly all of the fundamental interests of each person are connected with the fulfilment of all or nearly all of the fundamental interests of every other person' (Christiano, 2006, p. 85; see also Erman, 2014, p. 541.)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Christiano, 2006 source
    • cites Erman, 2014 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims. The quote only partly states this claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The boundary problem requires a multidimensional approach that also asks whether it is justifiable to have a decision-making body with a given domain and/or scope in the first place.

    “We need, in other words, to take a multidimensional approach to the boundary problem.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Solving the boundary problem requires a theory about the inner workings of democracy, i.e., how democratic systems translate members' interests, opinions, and judgements into collective decisions.

    “My second proposal is that to solve the boundary problem, we need to have a theory about the inner workings of democracy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A person should be allowed to participate in and express views on a residents' association's local environment campaign even though they are not subjected to its decisions, since no legal binding or coercion is involved.

    “I should surely be allowed to participate and express my views, even though it would be more than a stretch to say that I am being 'subjected' to its decisions because no legal binding or coercion is involved.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    If a decision significantly affects my interests, what I can rightfully demand is that the body taking it give those interests due consideration.

    “In general, if a decision is going to be made somewhere that significantly affects my interests, what I can rightfully demand is that the body taking that decision should give those interests due consideration (Beckman, 2009, pp. 45-46).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Beckman, 2009 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    A political association in which a majority group uses its political advantage to decide all cultural questions in its favour without concession to minorities does not realise political equality and is to that extent undemocratic.

    “A political association in which a majority group uses its political advantage to decide all cultural questions in its favour and without any concession to minorities does not realise political equality and is to that extent undemocratic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    Critics claim that in practice the All Subjected Principle is not more determinate because states regularly take decisions and make laws applying to outsiders, so the principle implies that almost anyone might potentially have a right to be included.

    “Critics claim that in practice this is not so because states now regularly take decisions and make laws that apply to people outside of their borders, thereby subjecting outsiders to those laws, so ASP too implies that almost anyone might potentially have a right to be included in their decision-making.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    There is reason to be concerned about states exercising their legal powers extraterritorially when this is not essential for reasons of self-defence.

    “To be clear, there is certainly reason to be concerned about states exercising their legal powers extraterritorially when this is not essential for reasons of self-defence (such as warding off an imminent terrorist attack).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The life-shaping character of subjection distinguishes it from cases in which a person's interests are merely affected in one way or another.

    “and it is the life-shaping character of this subjection that distinguishes it from other cases in which a person's interests are merely affected in one way or another.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Because being subjected is narrower than being affected, supporters of the All Subjected Principle argue that it provides a more determinate and more plausible solution to the constituency problem than the All-Affected Interests Principle.

    “Because 'being subjected' to decisions appears to be considerably narrower than 'being affected' by them, supporters of ASP argue that it provides a more determinate, and more plausible, solution to the constituency problem than AAIP.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Where misalignment exists, it can in principle be put right by altering the constituency, the domain, or the scope.

    “Conversely, where we find misalignment, as we often will, in principle it can be put right either by altering the constituency (including more or fewer people in decision-making), altering the domain (widening or narrowing the geographical range over which the decisions apply), or altering the scope (adding to or subtracting from the decision agenda).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The key idea behind the All-Affected Interests Principle is to solve the boundary problem by identifying the constituency that should be empowered to take decisions whose domain and scope are already known.

    “Nevertheless, the key idea behind AAIP is to solve the boundary problem by identifying the constituency that should be empowered to take decisions whose domain and scope are already known.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Extraterritorial exercises of legal power can be characterised as democratically unjustifiable extensions of the domain of decision-making.

    “This is where the broader framing of the boundary problem I am recommending is helpful, because these power exercises can be characterised as democratically unjustifiable extensions of the domain of decision-making”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Although in a formal sense extraterritorial laws may make large numbers of people subject to the laws of other states, it is not clear that this is subjection in the sense that motivates the All Subjected Principle.

    “Yet, although in a formal sense this may make large numbers of people world-wide subject to the laws of various states other than their own, it is not clear that this is 'subjection' in the sense that motivates ASP.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    To make progress on the boundary problem, we need to bring democratic values to bear on it.

    “To make progress, we need to bring democratic values to bear on the boundary problem.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    We have democratic reasons for wanting to find a solution to the boundary problem, if we can.

    “These are preliminary observations, intended only to suggest that we have democratic reasons for wanting to find a solution to the boundary problem, if we can.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisenone given

    The All-Affected Interests Principle is perhaps the most prominent principle applied to solve the boundary problem.

    “Perhaps, the most prominent is the All-Affected Interests Principle (AAIP).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    The standard case of subjection to a government is being required to conform to a battery of laws that will be enforced if necessary by the threat of coercion.

    “However, the standard case of subjection to a government is being required to conform to a battery of laws that will be enforced if necessary by the threat of coercion”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Equal political rights for the members of the demos are necessary but not sufficient for political equality.

    “To achieve it, it is necessary, but not sufficient, that the members of the demos should have equal political rights.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    ASP assumes that the domain and scope issues of the boundary problem have already been settled.

    “Second, and more important, ASP assumes that the domain and scope issues have already been settled.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    States should stop making laws with such a wide extraterritorial extension and rely instead on reciprocal arrangements with other states to control cross-border criminal activity.

    “States should simply stop making laws with such a wide extension and rely instead on making reciprocal arrangements with other states to control cross-border criminal activity”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goodin, 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Most existing literature has focused narrowly on the constituency question, endorsing either the All-Affected Interests Principle or the All Subjected Principle.

    “Most of the existing literature has focussed narrowly on the constituency question, endorsing either the All-Affected Interests Principle or the All Subjected Principle”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A general theory of boundaries must include concerns such as economic self-sufficiency and shared identity of the units.

    “I have argued elsewhere that a general theory of boundaries must include concerns such as these (Miller, 2016).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Miller, 2016 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    Setting the boundaries of democracy involves attending simultaneously to three variables: domain, constituency, and scope.

    “The study argues that setting the boundaries of democracy involves attending simultaneously to three variables: domain (where and to whom do decisions apply), constituency (who is entitled to be included in the deciding body) and scope (which issues should be on the decision agenda).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    The scope dimension tends to be neglected in discussions of the boundary problem.

    “The scope dimension tends to be neglected in discussions of the boundary problem”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    From a democratic point of view, the ideal case is one in which constituency, domain, and scope are perfectly aligned.

    “The point, then, is that from a democratic point of view, the ideal case is one in which constituency, domain and scope are perfectly aligned: a given body of people make decisions that apply within the area that they, and only they, inhabit on issues that are legitimately theirs to decide.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    There is a third dimension to the boundary problem: scope, the range of issues that any given democratic body is entitled to make decisions about.

    “And there is yet a third dimension to be considered, namely that of scope: what is the range of issues that any given democratic body is entitled to make decisions about?”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The radical view carries the danger that making all existing boundaries objects of ongoing contestation puts the functioning of democracy itself in question, since democracy seems to require a relatively stable demos that can make coherent decisions over time.

    “Conversely, the radical view carries with it the danger that by making all existing boundaries into objects of ongoing contestation, the functioning of democracy itself is put in question, since democracy seems to require a relatively stable demos that can make coherent decisions over time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Democracy requires a relatively stable demos that can make coherent decisions over time.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    The subjection that gives rise to a claim for political inclusion is subjection that actually shapes a person's life by opening up and protecting options while shutting off others, thereby enabling and potentially threatening their autonomy.

    “The subjection that gives rise to a claim for political inclusion is subjection that actually shapes a person's life by opening up (and protecting) options that they might choose while shutting off others, thereby both enabling and potentially threatening their autonomy”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Miller, 2010

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Beckman, 2014 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Neither the conservative nor the radical response to the boundary problem is wholly satisfactory.

    “Neither of these responses seems wholly satisfactory, however”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Maltais, Rosenberg and Beckman, 2019 source
    • cites Donahue & Ochoa Espejo, 2016

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Goodin argues that anticosmopolitans hoping to rely on the All Subjected Principle to keep the franchise within broadly conventional bounds will be disappointed.

    “According to Goodin, 'anticosmopolitans hoping to rely on the ASP to keep the franchise within broadly conventional bounds will be sorely disappointed' (Goodin, 2016, p. 368).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Goodin, 2016 source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Political equality is a core component of democracy.

    “Political equality is plainly a core component of democracy.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Political equality and solidarity are values that both liberals and radicals should embrace.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Neither the All-Affected Interests Principle nor the All Subjected Principle is satisfactory as a general solution to the boundary problem.

    “but neither is satisfactory as a general solution.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    There is no agreement on a solution to the boundary problem, or on what exactly the boundary problem is.

    “Yet, despite a fairly extensive literature addressed to the topic, there is no sign of agreement on a solution, or indeed on what exactly the boundary problem is.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The domain issue and the constituency issue are deeply interconnected: one cannot justifiably set physical boundaries without knowing who is included in the demos that will legislate inside them, and vice versa.

    “But on reflection, it seems that those two issues are deeply interconnected: One cannot (justifiably) set physical boundaries without knowing who is going to be included in the demos that will legislate inside them, and vice versa.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The units we favour should be those likely to promote political equality and solidarity among members of the demos.

    “The units we favour should be those that are likely to promote political equality and solidarity among members of the demos.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    'Interests' in this argument must be interpreted broadly to include not just material interests but also cultural interests pursued through political channels.

    “Note that 'interests' here must be interpreted broadly so as to include not just material interests but also for instance cultural interests where these are pursued through political channels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The conservative response is undermined by the fact that boundaries have in the past been redrawn in ways beneficial to democracy, and there is no reason to think this process of revision has ended.

    “The first is undermined by the fact that boundaries have in the past been redrawn in ways that are beneficial to democracy, and there is no reason to think that this process of revision has come to an end.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Boundaries have in the past been redrawn in ways that are beneficial to democracy.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The existing literature on the boundary problem has, with one or two exceptions, mistakenly been searching for a single principle that could resolve the problem, such as AAIP.

    “I have argued that the existing literature on the boundary problem has (with one or two exceptions) mistakenly been searching for a single principle that could resolve the problem, such as AAIP.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It may be the domain or scope dimensions that need to be changed, for example by allowing a sub-unit to secede and become an independent decision-making body, or by amalgamating two units whose interests are intertwined.

    “Instead, it may be these other dimensions that need to be changed, for example, by allowing a sub-unit to secede and become an independent decisionmaking body, or by amalgamating two units in cases where interests are intertwined in such a way that neither can make decisions that do not have significant repercussions for the other.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The issues of constituency, domain and scope need to be taken together, with the general aim of creating or preserving units that perform well by democratic standards.

    “The issues of constituency, domain and scope need to be taken together, with the general aim of creating (or preserving) units that perform well, by democratic standards.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A broader approach is needed that looks not only at individual claims for political inclusion but also at the collective properties wanted in the demos and at the anticipated quality of its decision-making.

    “We need instead a broader approach that looks not only at individual claims for political inclusion, but at the collective properties that we want the demos to have, and at the anticipated quality of its decision-making.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    We should not assume that only democratically made rules can be politically legitimate.

    “Equally, we should not assume that only democratically made rules can be politically legitimate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Solving the boundary problem also involves asking when democracy is the right answer and when it is not.

    “Solving the boundary problem also involves asking when democracy is the right answer, and when it is not.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
46 of 46

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Democracy requires a relatively stable demos that can make coherent decisions over time.

    “since democracy seems to require a relatively stable demos that can make coherent decisions over time.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Boundaries have in the past been redrawn in ways that are beneficial to democracy.

    “boundaries have in the past been redrawn in ways that are beneficial to democracy”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Previous boundaries that encircled populations that found it difficult to live together as one people made collective decisions difficult.

    “Typically, these are cases in which previous boundaries have encircled populations that found it difficult to live together as one people, making collective decisions that applied to them all.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Subjection carries with it the risk of domination.

    “Subjection carries with it the risk of domination”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Political equality and solidarity are values that both liberals and radicals should embrace.

    “Here, I focus on two values that both liberals and radicals should embrace: political equality and solidarity; I will finally suggest that they work most effectively in tandem.”
5 of 5

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Cited author's surname differs from the reference list

    Minor

    The text cites Maltais, Rosenberg and Beckman (2019), but the matching reference lists the first author as Maltis.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Arrhenius G., 2005, Democracy unbound: Basic explorations 1, 14
  2. Dahl R., 1970, After the revolution?
  3. Whelan F., 1983, Nomos XXV: Liberal democracy, 13

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Miller, D.
Affiliations
University of Oxford (GB)
Corresponding author
Miller, David
ORCID
Miller, David
Venue
Philosophy Compass
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-08-31
Volume
15
Issue
11
Pages
1-9
ISSN
1747-9991 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/phc3.12707
OpenAlex
W3081764014
Cited by
59
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 6
FWCI
27.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Philosophy Compass (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Philosophy and Ethics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Philosophy › Philosophical Ethics and Theory
Keywords
democratic legitimacy, constituency, political equality, solidarity, territorial state, border changes, democratic decision-making

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-27.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-27.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review