FAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Citation
An Exercise in Triangulation: Deliberative Democracy, Political Psychology, Public Opinion, and Campaign Reform
Abstract | Word Stems | Keywords | Association | Citation | Get this Document | Similar Titles
You can now view the document associated with this citation by clicking on the "View Document as HTML" link below. View Document as HTML: Click here to view the document
Abstract:
This paper considers how �public talk� in the context of electoral contests can be transformed in a way that it more closely approximates deliberative discourse. To do this, it triangulates between three essential factors: what deliberative theory, and in particular, the principle of reciprocity asks of voters; what political psychologists know about how people make electoral decisions; and what voters actually want from political campaigns. Specifically, I argue deliberative theory invites voters to do more than simply inform themselves: they must do so in an unbiased manner and in a way that enables them to offer reasons for their vote choice should they ever be called to account. I then consider how reasonable these requirements are given what political psychologists have learned about political interest, how people process information during campaigns, and how they make electoral decisions. Finally, I consider how these reforms mesh with what people actually want from campaigns, drawing on research that examines how Americans feel about their political processes. Based on this analysis, I argue that deliberativists must broaden their reform agenda to take the larger electoral context into account. Moreover, I conclude that certain potentially effective reforms, such as a National Deliberation Day, do not mesh well with what voters want from campaigns, while others that rely on the use of deliberative �shortcuts� do.
Most Common Document Word Stems: polit (92), inform (87), may (72), delib (66), reform (65), peopl (63), campaign (62), voter (58), make (55), decis (54), process (52), deliber (51), citizen (50), reason (49), one (46), interest (41), candid (41), elector (40), elect (36), want (34), vote (31),

Author's Keywords: deliberation, political psychology, campaigns	Convention All Academic Convention can solve the abstract management needs for any association's annual meeting. Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf. Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets! Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more! Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering. Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more! Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches! Click here for more information.
Association: Name: American Political Science Association URL: http://www.apsanet.org
Citation: URL: http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p39981_index.html Direct Link: HTML Code:

Lipsitz, Keena. "An Exercise in Triangulation: Deliberative Democracy, Political Psychology, Public Opinion, and Campaign Reform" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC, Sep 01, 2005 Online <PDF>. 2008-08-16 <http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p39981_index.html>

Lipsitz, K. (2005, Sep) "An Exercise in Triangulation: Deliberative Democracy, Political Psychology, Public Opinion, and Campaign Reform" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Marriott Wardman Park, Omni Shoreham, Washington Hilton, Washington, DC Online <PDF> Retrieved 2008-08-16 from http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p39981_index.html

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript Review Method: Peer Reviewed Abstract: This paper considers how �public talk� in the context of electoral contests can be transformed in a way that it more closely approximates deliberative discourse. To do this, it triangulates between three essential factors: what deliberative theory, and in particular, the principle of reciprocity asks of voters; what political psychologists know about how people make electoral decisions; and what voters actually want from political campaigns. Specifically, I argue deliberative theory invites voters to do more than simply inform themselves: they must do so in an unbiased manner and in a way that enables them to offer reasons for their vote choice should they ever be called to account. I then consider how reasonable these requirements are given what political psychologists have learned about political interest, how people process information during campaigns, and how they make electoral decisions. Finally, I consider how these reforms mesh with what people actually want from campaigns, drawing on research that examines how Americans feel about their political processes. Based on this analysis, I argue that deliberativists must broaden their reform agenda to take the larger electoral context into account. Moreover, I conclude that certain potentially effective reforms, such as a National Deliberation Day, do not mesh well with what voters want from campaigns, while others that rely on the use of deliberative �shortcuts� do.

The Veteran Vote: Electoral Effects of Candidate and Voter Military Service in Presidential Campaigns

Voters� Motivation and Information Processing: A Model of Motivated Information Processing in a Political Campaign

Social Networks in the 2006 Mexican Elections: Why is Voting Behavior so Regionalized in Mexico? Political Discussion and Electoral Choice in 2006