The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Democracy and deliberation: new directions for democratic reform
Abstract
This book proposes a new kind of democracy for the modern era, one that not only gives citizens more power but also allows them more opportunities to exercise this power thoughtfully. James S. Fishkin here suggests an innovative solution to the problem of inadequate deliberation, in particular within our presidential nomination system. His reform involves a well-publicized national caucus in which a representative sample of American citizens would interact directly with presidential contenders in order to reflect and vote on the issues and candidates. In adapting democracy to the large scale nation state, says Fishkin, Americans have previously had two choices. They could participate directly through primaries and referenda or they could depend on elite groups-such as party conventions and legislatures-to represent them. The first choice offers political equality but little chance for deliberation; the second offers the participants an opportunity to deliberate but provides less political equality for the electorate. The national caucus that Fishkin proposes-an example of what he calls a opinion poll-combines deliberation with political equality and reveals what the public would think if it had better conditions and information with which to explore and define the issues with the candidates. Arguing persuasively for the usefulness of deliberative opinion polls, Fishkin places them within the history of democratic theory and practice, exploring models of democracy ranging form ancient Athens and the debates of the American founders to contemporary transitions toward democracy in Eastern Europe.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., & Balogh, S. (2012) · Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory · doi:10.1093/jopart/mur011 · Cited by 3,637
Valuing the Environment Through Contingent Valuation
Hanemann, W. M. (1994) · Journal of Economic Perspectives · doi:10.1257/jep.8.4.19 · Cited by 1,640
Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media
Mutz, D. C. (2001) · American Political Science Review · doi:10.1017/s0003055401000223 · Cited by 700
Disagreement, Ambivalence, and Engagement: The Political Consequences of Heterogeneous Networks
Huckfeldt, R., Mendez, J. M., & Osborn, T. (2004) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00357.x · Cited by 576
Democracy, Public Policy, and Lay Assessments of Scientific Testimony
Anderson, E. (2011) · Episteme · doi:10.3366/epi.2011.0013 · Cited by 445
Metadata
- Venue
- Choice Reviews Online
- Publisher
- American Library Association
- Published
- 1992-07-01
- Volume
- 29
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 29-6564-29-6564
- ISSN
- 0009-4978 (ISSN-L)
- 1523-8253
- OpenAlex
- W2166202269
- Cited by
- 1,497
- References
- 0
- Type
- book review
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Democracy and deliberation: new directions for democratic reform. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.5860/choice.29-6564
- The paper
- Democracy and deliberation: new directions for democratic reform. (1992). Choice Reviews Online. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.29-6564
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.