Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 10:00:39 GMT
The Electoral Model Expects That the Interests, Values, and Goals of the Representatives Elected by the Voters Are Largely Consistent With Those of the Voters, So That the Representatives Have Exogenous and Self-motivating Reasons to Implement the Wishes of the Voters. The Question in Our Context is Whether Congruence Between the Interests and Values of the Representatives and Those of the Citizens Who Elected Them Can Also Be Assumed in the Selection Pattern. Or Coincident With the Proportion of Non-participating Citizens Reflected in the Membership of a Randomly Selected Group and the Random Sample. Since Proposals to Grant Decision-making Status to Mini-publics Are Justified Because Their Participants Are Similar to Us or to.
Judges, Interest Groups or Other Political Actors Are Less Like Us Than Political Elites So We Need to Test This Hypothesized Protocol. The Argument Involves Several Claims. The Participants in the Small Public Are Ordinary Citizens Just Like Us. They Are Therefore Less UK Mobile Database Likely to Have Hidden Agendas or Conflicts of Interest When Deliberating the Public Interest Than Politicians, Pressure Groups and Other Organized Political Actors. We Can Trust Them as Our Representatives Because We Do Not Need to Regulate Them or Threaten Them With Sanctions Because They Have Independent Incentives to Pursue What is Best for the Political Community. Now Assume the Young Man According to the Pattern of Choosing a Representative.
Many Actors Are Similar to Us in a Stronger Sense. Interests, Values, Political Goals, Etc. That's Why We Should Trust Them Not Only Because We Don't Need to Threaten Them With Sanctions to Hold Them Accountable but in a Stronger Sense Because We Can Assume That Their Advice is Consistent With Ours. Thought if We Participated. In Short We Must Trust Them as Strongly to Accept Their Advice as We Would Our Own, for Example When Voting in a Referendum. Now While the First Statement is Reasonable the Second Statement is Problematic. Depend on.
Judges, Interest Groups or Other Political Actors Are Less Like Us Than Political Elites So We Need to Test This Hypothesized Protocol. The Argument Involves Several Claims. The Participants in the Small Public Are Ordinary Citizens Just Like Us. They Are Therefore Less UK Mobile Database Likely to Have Hidden Agendas or Conflicts of Interest When Deliberating the Public Interest Than Politicians, Pressure Groups and Other Organized Political Actors. We Can Trust Them as Our Representatives Because We Do Not Need to Regulate Them or Threaten Them With Sanctions Because They Have Independent Incentives to Pursue What is Best for the Political Community. Now Assume the Young Man According to the Pattern of Choosing a Representative.
Many Actors Are Similar to Us in a Stronger Sense. Interests, Values, Political Goals, Etc. That's Why We Should Trust Them Not Only Because We Don't Need to Threaten Them With Sanctions to Hold Them Accountable but in a Stronger Sense Because We Can Assume That Their Advice is Consistent With Ours. Thought if We Participated. In Short We Must Trust Them as Strongly to Accept Their Advice as We Would Our Own, for Example When Voting in a Referendum. Now While the First Statement is Reasonable the Second Statement is Problematic. Depend on.
