Support for direct and deliberative models of democracy in the UK: understanding the difference

IF 1.8 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Research Exchange Pub Date : 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1080/2474736x.2020.1809474
Sergiu Gherghina, Brigitte Geißel
{"title":"Support for direct and deliberative models of democracy in the UK: understanding the difference","authors":"Sergiu Gherghina, Brigitte Geißel","doi":"10.1080/2474736x.2020.1809474","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The models of direct and deliberative democracy are broadly considered the major alternatives to representative democracy. So far, the two models have been merged under the broad umbrella of participatory democracy and thus little is known about why citizens support direct democracy and/or deliberation. They are distinct procedures, driven by different logics and outcomes and this makes it likely that the preference for them rest on different premises. This article fills this gap in the literature and distinguishes between the models proposing two central arguments. First, we expect that several general determinants have a positive impact on the support for both direct democracy and deliberation because they are different from representative democracy. Second, we test the effect of specific determinants that drive people towards supporting more one of the two alternative models of democracy. We use individual level data from an original survey conducted in December 2018 on a representative sample of 1094 respondents in the UK. The results indicate that the supporters of direct democracy differ from those of deliberative democracy in several ways.","PeriodicalId":20269,"journal":{"name":"Political Research Exchange","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/2474736x.2020.1809474","citationCount":"20","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Research Exchange","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/2474736x.2020.1809474","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20

Abstract

ABSTRACT The models of direct and deliberative democracy are broadly considered the major alternatives to representative democracy. So far, the two models have been merged under the broad umbrella of participatory democracy and thus little is known about why citizens support direct democracy and/or deliberation. They are distinct procedures, driven by different logics and outcomes and this makes it likely that the preference for them rest on different premises. This article fills this gap in the literature and distinguishes between the models proposing two central arguments. First, we expect that several general determinants have a positive impact on the support for both direct democracy and deliberation because they are different from representative democracy. Second, we test the effect of specific determinants that drive people towards supporting more one of the two alternative models of democracy. We use individual level data from an original survey conducted in December 2018 on a representative sample of 1094 respondents in the UK. The results indicate that the supporters of direct democracy differ from those of deliberative democracy in several ways.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
支持英国的直接和协商民主模式:理解两者的区别
直接民主和协商民主模式被广泛认为是代议制民主的主要替代模式。到目前为止,这两种模式已经在参与式民主的大保护伞下合并,因此人们对公民支持直接民主和/或审议的原因知之甚少。它们是不同的过程,由不同的逻辑和结果驱动,这使得对它们的偏好可能基于不同的前提。本文填补了文献中的这一空白,并区分了提出两个中心论点的模型。首先,我们期望几个一般决定因素对支持直接民主和审议都有积极影响,因为它们不同于代议制民主。其次,我们测试了特定决定因素的影响,这些决定因素促使人们支持两种可供选择的民主模式中的更多一种。我们使用了2018年12月对英国1094名受访者的代表性样本进行的原始调查中的个人层面数据。结果表明,直接民主的支持者与协商民主的支持者在几个方面存在差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Research Exchange
Political Research Exchange POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
审稿时长
39 weeks
期刊最新文献
Online repression and transnational social movements: Thailand and the #MilkTeaAlliance Did Russia’s invasion of Ukraine unite Europe? Cohesion and divisions of the European Parliament on Twitter Quantifying the ideational context: political frames, meaning trajectories and punctuated equilibria in Spanish mainstream press during the Catalan nationalist challenge Breakdown by disengagement: Tunisia’s transition from representative democracy Merging the Great Patriotic War and Russian warfare in Ukraine. A case-study of Russian military patriotic clubs in 2022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1