Reducing the Burden of Decision in Digital Democracy Applications: A Comparative Analysis of Six Decision-making Software

2021 ◽  
pp. 016224392110540
Author(s):  
Marco Deseriis
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Democratic Process ◽  
Design Code ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
Social Actors ◽  
Policy Initiatives ◽  
Digital Democracy ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Aggregate Burden ◽  
The Relationship

The more digital democracy applications lower the costs of political participation, allowing ordinary citizens to propose their own policy initiatives, the more they increase the burden of decision for the very same citizens, who are required to debate and vote on many issues. Drawing from this paradox, this article considers how the designers and administrators of six popular decision-making software (DMS) have introduced software features and norms of use whose function is to reduce the aggregate burden of decision for participants in digital democracy initiatives (DDIs). Building upon Andrew Feenberg’s definition of the design code of technology as a technical stabilization of social demands, this article considers how different DMS stabilize the democratic interventions of a plurality of actors, affecting political equality along two axes of the democratic process: the relationship between the exchange of opinions and the synthesis of opinion and the relationship between agenda setting and voting. This article concludes that the design code of digital democracy software reflects an ongoing tension between the need of governing actors to make the democratic process manageable and the pressure of social actors to make it more equal and inclusive.

The Priority of Democracy

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Knight ◽  
James Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Monetary Policy ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Federal Reserve ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Institutional Choice ◽  
Democratic Process ◽  
Strong Case ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Relationship

Pragmatism and its consequences are central issues in American politics today, yet scholars rarely examine in detail the relationship between pragmatism and politics. This book systematically explores the subject and makes a strong case for adopting a pragmatist approach to democratic politics—and for giving priority to democracy in the process of selecting and reforming political institutions. What is the primary value of democracy? When should we make decisions democratically and when should we rely on markets? And when should we accept the decisions of unelected officials, such as judges or bureaucrats? This book explores how a commitment to pragmatism should affect our answers to such important questions. It concludes that democracy is a good way of determining how these kinds of decisions should be made—even if what the democratic process determines is that not all decisions should be made democratically. So, for example, the democratically elected U.S. Congress may legitimately remove monetary policy from democratic decision-making by putting it under the control of the Federal Reserve. This book argues that pragmatism offers an original and compelling justification of democracy in terms of the unique contributions democratic institutions can make to processes of institutional choice. This focus highlights the important role that democracy plays, not in achieving consensus or commonality, but rather in addressing conflicts. Indeed, the book suggest that democratic politics is perhaps best seen less as a way of reaching consensus or agreement than as a way of structuring the terms of persistent disagreement.

Plural voting and political equality: A thought experiment in democratic theory

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 65-86 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor Latimer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Thought Experiment ◽  
Voting Systems ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
Joint Project ◽  
Working Definition ◽  
Voting System ◽  
Alternative Proposal ◽  
Voting Scheme ◽  
Definition Of

I demonstrate that a set of well-known objections defeat John Stuart Mill’s plural voting proposal, but do not defeat plural voting as such. I adopt the following as a working definition of political equality: a voting system is egalitarian if and only if departures from a baseline of equally weighted votes are normatively permissible. I develop an alternative proposal, called procedural plural voting, which allocates plural votes procedurally, via the free choices of the electorate, rather than according to a substantive standard of competence. The alternative avoids standards objections to Mill’s proposal. Moreover, reflection on the alternative plural voting scheme disrupts our intuitions about what counts as an egalitarian voting system. Undue emphasis on Mill’s version of plural voting obscures three important reasons to reject plural voting in favor of strictly egalitarian voting systems: (1) that certain choices that generate inequalities of political power are morally impermissible; (2) that even chosen inequalities may undermine the potential epistemic benefits of democratic decision-making; and (3) that such choices may undermine citizens’ commitments to democracy understood as a joint project.

Philanthropy, the Nonprofit Sector & the Democratic Dilemma

Daedalus ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 142 (2) ◽  
pp. 139-158 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Dobkin Hall
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Nonprofit Organizations ◽  
Nonprofit Sector ◽  
Democratic Process ◽  
American Democracy ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
The Past ◽  
Private Power ◽  
Democratic Dilemma

The central dilemma of American democracy is the tension between “voice” and “equality”: between the Constitution's unconditional guarantees of citizens' expressive, associational, and property rights and the legal and political equality that is the foundation of majoritarian decision-making. Philanthropy and nonprofit organizations – which enable citizens to give money and time to support causes in which they believe – have posed this dilemma with unusual force, allowing moneyed minorities to oppose and sometimes overwhelm the popular will. In the past, these assertions of private power have inevitably aroused popular opposition producing legislative and regulatory outcomes that have maintained a balance between voice and equality. Today, with unprecedented accumulations of wealth and legal changes permitting the unrestricted use of wealth in politics, the unchallenged exercise of private power through philanthropy and the nonprofit sector poses grave threats to the democratic process.

scholarly journals The Relationship between Courts and the Other Arms of Government in Promoting and Protecting Socio-economic Rights in South Africa: What About Separation of Powers?

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justice Denis Davis
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Constitutional Democracy ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
Life Choices ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Democratic Principles ◽  
The Relationship

 The model of constitutional democracy which is envisaged in the 1996 text of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (the Constitution) has been described as promoting  'a thick' conception of democracy.  It is concerned with the empowerment of all citizens to participate in decisions that are crucial to the outcome of their life choices. At its most basic promise, the Constitution promotes a model of participatory democracy, by creating a series of representative institutions and enabling participation in decision making, both inside and outside of these institutions. Expressed differently, the Constitution promotes both participation through regular elections and enshrines a principle of accountability in terms of which government can be held accountable for particular aspects of its policy, particularly those which fail to pass constitutional muster.  That leads to the second component of the model which introduces a substantive set of guarantees to ensure participation. The idea is that various institutions of State should work to promote and to vindicate basis democratic principles which are directed to accountable control of decision making and substantive political equality between citizens.

Disenfranchisement and the Capacity/Equality Puzzle: Why Disenfranchise Children but Not Adults Living with Cognitive Disabilities

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-279
Author(s):  
Attila Mráz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Cognitive Capacity ◽  
Political Equality ◽  
Political Decision ◽  
Liberal Democratic ◽  
Collective Competence ◽  
Democratic Principles ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Political Decision Making ◽  
Political Liberal

AbstractIn this paper, I offer a solution to the Capacity/Equality Puzzle. The puzzle holds that an account of the franchise may adequately capture at most two of the following: (1) a political equality-based account of the franchise, (2) a capacity-based account of disenfranchising children, and (3) universal adult enfranchisement. To resolve the puzzle, I provide a complex liberal egalitarian justification of a moral requirement to disenfranchise children. I show that disenfranchising children is permitted by both the proper political liberal and the proper political egalitarian understandings of the relationship between cognitive capacity and the franchise. Further, I argue, disenfranchising children is required by a minimalistic, procedural principle of collective competence in political decision-making. At the same time, I show that political equality requires the enfranchisement of all adults, regardless of cognitive capacities, and that the collective competence principle does not ground adult disenfranchisement. This justifies the progressive legal trend that holds the capacity-based disenfranchisement of adults to be incompatible with liberal democratic principles.

The Relationship Between Hearing Loss Self-Management and Hearing Aid Benefit and Satisfaction

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 274-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Convery ◽  
Gitte Keidser ◽  
Louise Hickson ◽  
Carly Meyer
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Loss ◽  
Hearing Aids ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Hearing Aid ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Self Management ◽  
Hearing Aid Benefit ◽  
The Relationship

Purpose Hearing loss self-management refers to the knowledge and skills people use to manage the effects of hearing loss on all aspects of their daily lives. The purpose of this study was to investigate the relationship between self-reported hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Method Thirty-seven adults with hearing loss, all of whom were current users of bilateral hearing aids, participated in this observational study. The participants completed self-report inventories probing their hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Correlation analysis was used to investigate the relationship between individual domains of hearing loss self-management and hearing aid benefit and satisfaction. Results Participants who reported better self-management of the effects of their hearing loss on their emotional well-being and social participation were more likely to report less aided listening difficulty in noisy and reverberant environments and greater satisfaction with the effect of their hearing aids on their self-image. Participants who reported better self-management in the areas of adhering to treatment, participating in shared decision making, accessing services and resources, attending appointments, and monitoring for changes in their hearing and functional status were more likely to report greater satisfaction with the sound quality and performance of their hearing aids. Conclusion Study findings highlight the potential for using information about a patient's hearing loss self-management in different domains as part of clinical decision making and management planning.

Centralization and Effectiveness of Reward Management in Multinational Enterprises

2018 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Tekieli ◽  
Marion Festing ◽  
Xavier Baeten
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Social Identity Theory ◽  
Multinational Enterprises ◽  
Role Identity ◽  
Management Decision ◽  
Role Identities ◽  
Management Decision Making ◽  
New Perspective ◽  
Subsidiary Managers ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract. Based on responses from 158 reward managers located at the headquarters or subsidiaries of multinational enterprises, the present study examines the relationship between the centralization of reward management decision making and its perceived effectiveness in multinational enterprises. Our results show that headquarters managers perceive a centralized approach as being more effective, while for subsidiary managers this relationship is moderated by the manager’s role identity. Referring to social identity theory, the present study enriches the standardization versus localization debate through a new perspective focusing on psychological processes, thereby indicating the importance of in-group favoritism in headquarters and the influence of subsidiary managers’ role identities on reward management decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document