首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     检索      

实现协商民主:虚拟和面对面的可能性
引用本文:James S.Fishkin,劳洁.实现协商民主:虚拟和面对面的可能性[J].浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版),2005,35(3):22-31.
作者姓名:James S.Fishkin  劳洁
作者单位:1. 斯坦福大学,大众传媒与政治科学系协商民主研究中心,美国,斯坦福,CA,9305
2. 浙江大学法学院
摘    要:如何在幅员辽阔的民族国家里同时实现两项基本民主价值--包容性和深思熟虑性--是一个难题.根据实现这两项价值所达到的程度,可以有各种公共磋商形式.当前在互联网上发生的公共磋商形式,既缺乏政治平等,又缺乏协商.而"协商民意测验"可以说是实现这两种基本价值的最佳方式.其中的政治平等通过随机抽样(给每人以成为起决定作用投票人的平等机会)和讨论平等来实现.协商通过适中而均衡的小组讨论、回答参与者提出的问题以及保持中立的专家小组三者来实现.政治平等和协商在实际应用中有着多种维度的标准.实施协商民意测验的办法包括面对面交流和网络交流两种,它们都有助于实现这两种基本价值.

关 键 词:协商民主  包容性  深思熟虑性  协商民意测验  
文章编号:1008-942X(2005)03-0022-10
修稿时间:2004年12月30

Realizing Deliberative Democracy: Virtual and Face to Face Possibilities
James S.Fishkin.Realizing Deliberative Democracy: Virtual and Face to Face Possibilities[J].Journal of Zhejiang University(Humanities and Social Sciences),2005,35(3):22-31.
Authors:James SFishkin
Abstract:This paper focuses on some key problems of democratic theory and how they can be solved through new institutions modeled on ″Deliberative Polling″. It then argues that many of the practical impediments to realizing these institutions can be more easily overcome, in the long run, in virtual space. The result is a realizable picture of virtual democratic possibilities that combine key values that are in great tension in most democratic institutions.The paper begins with econundrum of how to simultaneously realize two fundamental democratic values— political equality and deliberation—in the large scale nation state. It then looks at various forms of public consultation in terms of the degree to which they achieve one or another of these values. It looks especially at forms of public consultation that presently take place on the internet and finds them lacking in both political equality and deliberation. It argues that Deliberative Polling offers the best realization of both basic values.Political equality is achieved through random sampling (giving each person an equal chance of being the decisive voter) and through equality in the discussion process. Deliberation is achieved through moderated and balanced small group discussions and balanced panels of experts who respond to the questions from the participants. Various criteria for evaluating both political equality and deliberation are discussed and appliedThe paper then surveys how Deliberative Polling has been employed, both in face to face and online contexts so as to achieve these two basic values. The two first online Deliberative Polls (both conducted recently at Stanford University) are discussed as well as a third (in the US Presidential election of 2004) that will just have been completed at the time of this conference. Some discussion will be offered of whether or not the same desirable characteristics of deliberation that we find in face to face Deliberative Polls can be achieved online. Some of these characteristics include: a) participation by representative samples b) the participants becoming measurably more well informed c) deliberative opinion being significantly different from top of the head opinion d) the opinion changes being connected to the information gains e) development of greater preference structuration so that cycles undermining the collective coherence of democracy become less likely f) the process avoiding objectionable small group effects such as the ″polarization″ posited by Cass Sunstein or the pattern of group conformity that is sometimes called ″group think.″While the evidence is incomplete, there is nevertheless some considerable support for the proposition that just as these normatively desirable results seem to arise in face to face Deliberative Polls, they also seem, by and large, to arise online (with the exception of e) which has not been tested yet by appropriate ranking questions). 
Keywords:deliberative democracy  inclusion  thoughtfulness  Deliberative Polling  
本文献已被 CNKI 万方数据 等数据库收录!
点击此处可从《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》浏览原始摘要信息
点击此处可从《浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版)》下载免费的PDF全文
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号