Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-79b67bcb76-vkbph Total loading time: 1.905 Render date: 2021-05-13T07:27:05.227Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true }

REPRESENTATION IN MODELS OF EPISTEMIC DEMOCRACY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 December 2018

Abstract

Epistemic justifications for democracy have been offered in terms of two different forms of information aggregation and decision-making. The Condorcet Jury Theorem is appealed to as a justification in terms of votes, and the Hong–Page ‘diversity trumps ability’ result is appealed to as a justification in terms of deliberation in the form of collaborative search. Both results, however, are models of full and direct participation across a population. In this paper, we contrast how these results hold up within the familiar structure of a representative hierarchy. We first consider extant analytic work that shows that representation inevitably weakens the voting results of the Condorcet Jury Theorem. We then go on to show that collaborative search, as modeled by Hong and Page, holds its own within hierarchical representation. In a variation on the dynamics of group search, representation even shows a slight edge over direct participation. This contrast illustrates how models of information aggregation vary when put into a representative structure. While some of the epistemic merits of democracy are lost when voting is done hierarchically, modeling results show that representation can preserve and even slightly amplify the epistemic virtues of collaborative search.

Type
Articles
Information
Episteme , Volume 17 , Issue 4 , December 2020 , pp. 498 - 518
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

Footnotes

This work was produced by the computational social philosophy lab (cspl), an interdisciplinary and multi-institutional group of researchers that investigates questions of social epistemology, philosophy of science, and political philosophy using traditional philosophical methods and agent-based computer models with an eye toward empirical results.

References

Allen, T. J. and Cohen, S. I. 1969. ‘Information Flow in Research and Development Laboratories.’ Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 1219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, C. and Brown, C. E. 2010. ‘The Functions and Dysfunctions of Hierarchy.’ Research in Organizational Behavior, 30: 5589.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. 2006. ‘The Epistemology of Democracy.’ Episteme, 3: 822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, D. and Feddersen, T. J. 2005. ‘Deliberation and Voting Rules.’ In Austen-Smith, D. and Duggan, J. (eds) Social Choice and Strategic Decisions: Essays in Honor of Jeffrey S. Banks, pp. 269316. Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Austen-Smith, D. and Feddersen, T. J. 2006. ‘Deliberation, Preference Uncertainty, and Voting Rules.’ American Political Science Review, 100: 209–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bednar, J. 2009. The Robust Federation: Principles of Design. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Beisbart, C. and Bovens, C. E. 2013. ‘Minimizing the Threat of a Positive Majority Deficit in a Two-tier Voting System with Equipopulous Units.’ Public Choice, 145: 7594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betz, G. 2013. Debate Dynamics: How Controversy Improves our Beliefs, Vol. 357. Heidelberg: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boland, P. J. 1989. ‘Majority Systems and the Condorcet Jury Theorem.’ Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series D (The Statistician), 38: 181–9.Google Scholar
Boland, P. J., Proschan, F. and Tong, Y. L. 1989. ‘Modeling Dependence in Simple and Indirect Majority Systems.’ Journal of Applied Probability, 26: 81–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cantimur, Y. 2016. ‘When and why hierarchy steepness is related to team performance.’ European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 25: 658–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. 1986. ‘An Epistemic Conception of Democracy.Ethics, 97: 2638.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Condorcet, M. 1785 [1995]. ‘An Essay on the Application of Analysis to the Probability of Decisions Rendered by a Plurality of Votes (Fifth Part).’ In McLean, I. and Urken, A. B. (transl. and ed.), Classics of Social Choice, pp. 91112. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dahl, R. A. 1983. Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy: Autonomy versus Control. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Dietrich, F. and Spiekermann, K. 2013. ‘Epistemic Democracy with Defensible Premises.’ Economics and Philosophy, 29: 87120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dietrich, F., List, C. and Bradley, R. 2016. ‘Belief Revision Generalized: A Joint Characterization of Bayes' and Jeffrey's rules.’ Journal of Economic Theory, 162: 352–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, D. 1994. ‘Opinion Leaders, Independence, and Condorcet's Jury Theorem.’ Theory and Decision, 36: 31162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Estlund, D. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J. S. 1991. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J. S. 1995. The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, J. S. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fung, A. 2006. ‘Democratizing the Policy Process.’ In Goodin, R., Moran, M. and Rien, M. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Public Policy, pp. 669–85. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gaus, G. 1997. ‘Does Democracy Reveal the Voice of the People? Four Takes on Rousseau.’ Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 75: 141–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodin, R. E. and Spiekermann, K. 2012. ‘Epistemic Aspects of Representative Government.’ European Political Science Review, 4: 303–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grofman, B. and Feld, S. L. 1988. ‘Rousseau's General Will: A Condorcetian Perspective.’ American Political Science Review, 82: 567–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grönlund, K., Bächtiger, A. and Setälä, M. (eds) 2013. Deliberative Mini-Publics: Practices, Promises, Pitfalls. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Habermas, J. 1996. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy (Transl. Berger, T.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, L. and Page, S. E. 2004. ‘Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers can Outperform Groups of High-ability Problem Solvers.’ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 101: 16385–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kohn, N. W., Paulus, P. B. and Choi, Y. 2011. ‘Building on the Ideas of Others: An Examination of the Idea Combination Process.’ Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47: 554–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuehn, D. 2017. ‘Diversity, Ability, and Democracy: A Note on Thompson's Challenge to Hong and Page.’ Critical Review, 29: 7287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladha, K. K. 1992. ‘The Condorcet Jury Theorem, Free Speech, and Correlated Votes.’ American Journal of Political Science, 36: 617–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ladha, K. K. 1995. ‘Information Pooling Through Majority-rule Voting: Condorcet's Jury Theorem with Correlated Votes.’ Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 26: 353–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landa, D. and Meirowitz, A. 2009. ‘Game Theory, Information, and Deliberative Democracy.’ American Journal of Political Science, 53: 427–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, H. 2013. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Landemore, H. and Elster, J. (eds) 2012. Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Landemore, H. and Page, S. E. 2015. ‘Deliberation and Disagreement: Problem Solving, Prediction, and Positive Dissensus.Philosophy, Politics, and Economics, 14: 229–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, J. M. and Smith, E. R. 2013. ‘Group Cognition: Collective Information Search and Distribution.’ In Carlston, D. E. (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition, pp. 616–33. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levine, J. M. and Tindale, R. S. 2015. ‘Social Influence in Groups.’ In Mikulincer, M., Shaver, P. R., Dovidio, J. F. and Simpson, J. A. (eds), APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology, Volume 2: Group Processes, pp. 334. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lijphart, A. 1999. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-six Countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
List, C. 2005. ‘Group Knowledge and Group Rationality: A Group Aggregation Perspective.’ Episteme, 2: 2538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
List, C. 2018. ‘Democratic Deliberation and Social Choice: A Review.’ In Bächtiger, A., Dryzek, J. S., Mansbridge, J. and Warren, M. E. (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
List, C. and Goodin, R. E. 2001. ‘Epistemic Democracy: Generalizing the Condorcet Jury Theorem.’ Journal of Political Philosophy, 9: 277306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathis, J. 2011. ‘Deliberation with Evidence.’ American Political Science Review, 105: 516–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, N. R. 1986. ‘Information, Electorates, and Democracy: Some Extensions and Interpretations of the Condorcet Jury Theorem.’ In Grofman, B. & Owens, G. (eds), Information Pooling and Group Decision Making: Proceedings of the Second University of California, Irvine Conference on Political Economy, pp. 173192. Greenwich: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Niemeyer, S. 2011. ‘The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-publics.’ Politics & Society, 39: 103–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, S. E. 2007. The Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Page, S. E. 2011. Diversity and Complexity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Perote-Peña, J. and Piggins, A. 2015. ‘A Model of Deliberative and Aggregative Democracy.’ Economics and Philosophy, 31: 93121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, H. F. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rittel, H. W. J. 1965. ‘Hierarchy or Team? Considerations on the Organization of the R&D Cooperatives.’ In Tybur, R. A. (ed.), Economics of Research and Development, pp. 174218. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Rousseau, J-J. 1762 [1978]. The Social Contract. (Transl. Masters, J. and Masters, R.). New York, NY: St. Martins.Google Scholar
Schwartzberg, M. 2015. ‘Epistemic Democracy and its Challenges.’ Annual Review of Political Science, 18: 187203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, D. Forthcoming. ‘Diversity, Not Randomness, Trumps Ability.’ Philosophy of Science.Google Scholar
Stasser, G. and Dietz-Uhler, B. 2001. ‘Collective Choice, Judgment, and Problem Solving.’ In Hogg, M. A. and Tindale, R. S. (eds), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, pp. 3155. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Thompson, A. 2014. ‘Does Diversity Trump Ability? An Example of the Misuse of Mathematics in the Social Sciences.’ Notices of the American Mathematical Society, 61: 1024–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tindale, R. S., Nadler, J., Krebel, A. and Davis, J. H. 2001. ‘Procedural Mechanisms and Jury Behavior.’ In Hogg, M. A. & Tindale, R. S. (eds), Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Group Processes, pp. 574602. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Urbinati, N. and Warren, M. E. 2008. ‘The Concept of Representation in Contemporary Democratic Theory.’ Annual Review of Political Science, 11: 387412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Warren, M. E. and Pearse, H. (eds) 2008. Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Witte, E. and Davis, J. H. (eds) 2014. Understanding Group Behavior: Consensual Action by Small Groups, Vol. 1. New York, NY: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

REPRESENTATION IN MODELS OF EPISTEMIC DEMOCRACY
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

REPRESENTATION IN MODELS OF EPISTEMIC DEMOCRACY
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

REPRESENTATION IN MODELS OF EPISTEMIC DEMOCRACY
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *