Participants Have More
Feb 20, 2024 5:17:56 GMT -5
Post by jebinbdpq123 on Feb 20, 2024 5:17:56 GMT -5
Ex Ante Reflective Judgment is Rather the Considered Judgment of the People as a Whole So That Any Number of Non-participants Are Not Affected. These Recommendations Do Not Provide Any Basis for Questioning the Reliability of Participants in Small Public Events. After All, They Are Not Opinions Chosen to Reliably Indicate Facts but Counterfactual Opinions—that is, What People Would Think if They Reflected on the Matter Under Good Cognitive Conditions. If Anyone is Accountable It is to Counterfactual Citizens Whose Considered Judgments Should Be Reliably Demonstrated Rather Than to the Pre-reflective Judgments of Actual Citizens. Given This Why Citizens Should Think.
The Judgments of These Normative Value Than Their Own Opinions. Most of My Compatriots Are Like Me. A Matter of Blind Obedience. Participants in Small Publics in a Pluralistic Society Are Likely to UK Mobile Database Disagree on Contentious Political Issues. This is Particularly Evident in Situations Such as Deliberative Polls Because Participants Are Not Required to Reach Consensus. The Fact That a Random Sample is a Microcosm of the Population Considered Means That on Controversial Issues There Will Be a Majority Defending One View and a Minority Defending the Opposite View. It is Therefore Impossible to Say for All People Considered Individually That Most Random Samples Are Like Them. In the Absence of Relevant Cause Value.
In the Case of Viewing Information Such as Interests. Because of the Specific Details Behind the Majority's Recommendations, There is No Reason for Any Citizen to Assume That the Majority or Minority Recommendations Are Consistent With Their Own Considered Thinking. In Fact, Just Because the Small Townspeople Are a Microcosm of the Entire Town, It is Impossible for Everyone to Be Like Me. Some People Will Share My Interests and Values and Others Will Not. Since There is No Particular Reason to Think That the Mini-public's Recommendations Will Always Be Consistent With Those Approved by Participants Who Share My Interests and Values Either Before or After Deliberation I Have No Further Reason to Accept These.
The Judgments of These Normative Value Than Their Own Opinions. Most of My Compatriots Are Like Me. A Matter of Blind Obedience. Participants in Small Publics in a Pluralistic Society Are Likely to UK Mobile Database Disagree on Contentious Political Issues. This is Particularly Evident in Situations Such as Deliberative Polls Because Participants Are Not Required to Reach Consensus. The Fact That a Random Sample is a Microcosm of the Population Considered Means That on Controversial Issues There Will Be a Majority Defending One View and a Minority Defending the Opposite View. It is Therefore Impossible to Say for All People Considered Individually That Most Random Samples Are Like Them. In the Absence of Relevant Cause Value.
In the Case of Viewing Information Such as Interests. Because of the Specific Details Behind the Majority's Recommendations, There is No Reason for Any Citizen to Assume That the Majority or Minority Recommendations Are Consistent With Their Own Considered Thinking. In Fact, Just Because the Small Townspeople Are a Microcosm of the Entire Town, It is Impossible for Everyone to Be Like Me. Some People Will Share My Interests and Values and Others Will Not. Since There is No Particular Reason to Think That the Mini-public's Recommendations Will Always Be Consistent With Those Approved by Participants Who Share My Interests and Values Either Before or After Deliberation I Have No Further Reason to Accept These.