Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,082

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Against Deliberation

SANDERS, LYNN M.·1997·Political Theory

Abstract

Deliberation, which has become a democratic standard in American political settings, has also an undemocratic appeal. Foremost among the undemocratic charges against deliberation is that its proponents cannot guarantee equality of opportunity to those who want to participate in it. Furthermore, critics of deliberation argue that the problem of ordinary citizens committing excesses when they participate in deliberative processes must be addressed. The advantages and disadvantages of deliberation are evaluated and an alternative model for democratic politics is proposed. © COPYRIGHT 1997 Sage Publications Inc. Admittedly, opposing deliberation seems irrational.(1) A commitment to deliberation is, after all, a commitment to finding a way to address concerns, resolve disagreements, and overcome conflicts by offering arguments supported by reasons to our fellow citizens. Deliberative democracy promises legitimate--that is, morally justifiable and rationally produced--solutions to vexing political problems.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0090591797025003002

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
SANDERS, L. M.
Venue
Political Theory
Published
1997-06
Volume
25
Issue
3
Pages
347-376
ISSN
  • 0090-5917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7476
OpenAlex
W4233931383
Cited by
1,082
References
1
FWCI
27.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.