作为民众主权制度的辩诉、全民投票和投票倡议:卢梭对民众投票过程竞争理论的影响

Q3 Social Sciences Review of Politics Pub Date : 2022-10-10 DOI:10.1017/S0034670522000912
Spencer McKay
{"title":"作为民众主权制度的辩诉、全民投票和投票倡议:卢梭对民众投票过程竞争理论的影响","authors":"Spencer McKay","doi":"10.1017/S0034670522000912","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Popular-vote processes — such as plebiscites, referendums, and initiatives — are frequently understood as Rousseauian instruments of popular sovereignty. Yet, Rousseau did not theorize these devices himself. As a result, he has been claimed by proponents of competing theories of popular-vote processes. Theorists of sleeping sovereignty have claimed Rousseau's distinction between sovereignty and government in support of rare, constitutional referendums. Theorists of direct democracy invoke Rousseau's criticism of representation to demand frequent referendums. Plebiscitarianism casts Rousseau's general will as demanding the unification of the nation in one popularly legitimated leader through top-down plebiscites. Lastly, Condorcet's proposal for the “censure of the people” outlines how the sovereign could initiate popular votes itself in order to check the power of the government. I contend that Condorcet's account provides the most compelling link between Rousseau's account of popular sovereignty and the institutional design of popular-vote processes.","PeriodicalId":52549,"journal":{"name":"Review of Politics","volume":"85 1","pages":"23 - 47"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Plebiscites, Referendums, and Ballot Initiatives as Institutions of Popular Sovereignty: Rousseau's Influence on Competing Theories of Popular-Vote Processes\",\"authors\":\"Spencer McKay\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S0034670522000912\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Popular-vote processes — such as plebiscites, referendums, and initiatives — are frequently understood as Rousseauian instruments of popular sovereignty. Yet, Rousseau did not theorize these devices himself. As a result, he has been claimed by proponents of competing theories of popular-vote processes. Theorists of sleeping sovereignty have claimed Rousseau's distinction between sovereignty and government in support of rare, constitutional referendums. Theorists of direct democracy invoke Rousseau's criticism of representation to demand frequent referendums. Plebiscitarianism casts Rousseau's general will as demanding the unification of the nation in one popularly legitimated leader through top-down plebiscites. Lastly, Condorcet's proposal for the “censure of the people” outlines how the sovereign could initiate popular votes itself in order to check the power of the government. I contend that Condorcet's account provides the most compelling link between Rousseau's account of popular sovereignty and the institutional design of popular-vote processes.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Review of Politics\",\"volume\":\"85 1\",\"pages\":\"23 - 47\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Review of Politics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670522000912\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Review of Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S0034670522000912","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要民众投票过程——如公民投票、公民投票和倡议——通常被理解为卢梭式的民众主权工具。然而,卢梭本人并没有将这些装置理论化。因此,他被民众投票过程中相互竞争理论的支持者所宣称。沉睡主权的理论家声称卢梭区分主权和政府,以支持罕见的宪法公投。直接民主的理论家援引卢梭对代表制的批评,要求经常举行公民投票。辩诉主义将卢梭的总体意愿塑造为要求通过自上而下的公民投票将国家统一为一位普遍合法的领导人。最后,孔多塞提出的“谴责人民”的建议概述了主权国家如何自行发起普选,以制衡政府的权力。我认为,孔多塞的叙述在卢梭对民众主权的叙述与民众投票程序的制度设计之间提供了最令人信服的联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Plebiscites, Referendums, and Ballot Initiatives as Institutions of Popular Sovereignty: Rousseau's Influence on Competing Theories of Popular-Vote Processes
Abstract Popular-vote processes — such as plebiscites, referendums, and initiatives — are frequently understood as Rousseauian instruments of popular sovereignty. Yet, Rousseau did not theorize these devices himself. As a result, he has been claimed by proponents of competing theories of popular-vote processes. Theorists of sleeping sovereignty have claimed Rousseau's distinction between sovereignty and government in support of rare, constitutional referendums. Theorists of direct democracy invoke Rousseau's criticism of representation to demand frequent referendums. Plebiscitarianism casts Rousseau's general will as demanding the unification of the nation in one popularly legitimated leader through top-down plebiscites. Lastly, Condorcet's proposal for the “censure of the people” outlines how the sovereign could initiate popular votes itself in order to check the power of the government. I contend that Condorcet's account provides the most compelling link between Rousseau's account of popular sovereignty and the institutional design of popular-vote processes.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Review of Politics
Review of Politics Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
94
期刊最新文献
Any Time, Any Place, Any Way, Any Pace: Markets, EdTech, and the spaces of schooling. Ethical Growth in History: Good News and Bad Eric MacGilvray: Liberal Freedom: Pluralism, Polarization, and Politics. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. xvi, 221.) Ben Jones: Apocalypse without God: Apocalyptic Thought, Ideal Politics, and the Limits of Utopian Hope. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022. Pp. xiv, 225.) Jean-Yves Frétigné: To Live Is to Resist: The Life of Antonio Gramsci. Translated by Laura Marris. Foreword by Nadia Urbinati. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021. Pp. xxii, 306.)
×
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