IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/h/spr/rischp/978-3-032-02302-5_13.html

Deliberative Polling: A Critical Assessment

In: Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation

Author

Listed:
  • Cristina Lafont

    (Northwestern University, Department of Philosophy)

Abstract

Deliberative Polling is a promising model for fostering public participation in political deliberative processes. However, its specific design involves tradeoffs among various objectives and values. Thus, some of its intentionally created “features” can simultaneously constitute a shortcoming or a “bug.” My critical assessment of Deliberative Polling begins by highlighting some limitations of this kind—those that arise from the goals of the model itself. Insofar as this is the case, these limitations should not be seen as “net negative” features that ought to be removed; indeed, eliminating them would jeopardize much of the value found within this model of public participation. This leads me to focus on what I take to be the most serious shortcoming of Deliberative polling, namely, the disconnect between its participants and the nonparticipating public. In contrast to the limitations analyzed in the first section, I argue that this specific shortcoming needs to be squarely addressed and eliminated because it threatens to undermine the legitimacy of using Deliberative Polling in political decision-making processes. In a last step, I discuss some institutional features and mechanisms that could be combined with Deliberative Polling to strengthen its connection with the broader public and to thereby improve its legitimacy.

Suggested Citation

  • Cristina Lafont, 2025. "Deliberative Polling: A Critical Assessment," Risk, Governance and Society, in: Fairness and Competence in Citizen Participation, pages 229-244, Springer.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:rischp:978-3-032-02302-5_13
    DOI: 10.1007/978-3-032-02302-5_13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
    1. Check below whether another version of this item is available online.
    2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
    3. Perform a
    for a similarly titled item that would be available.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:rischp:978-3-032-02302-5_13. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.