Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Do Voters Trust Deliberative Minipublics? Examining the Origins and Impact of Legitimacy Perceptions for the Citizens’ Initiative Review

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Political Behavior Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Deliberative theorists argue that democracies face an increasing legitimacy crisis for lack of effective representation and robust decision-making processes. To address this problem, democratic reformers designed minipublics, such as Citizens Juries, Citizens Assemblies, and Deliberative Polls. Little is known, however, about who trusts minipublics and why. We use survey experiments to explore whether minipublics in three US states were able to influence the electorate’s policy knowledge and voting choices and whether such influences hinged on legitimacy. On average, respondents were uncertain or tilted towards distrust of these minipublics. We found higher levels of trust among people of color compared to Whites, poor compared to rich, and young compared to old. Specific information about minipublic design features did not boost their perceived legitimacy. In fact, one result suggests that awareness of balanced partisan testimony decreased trust. Finally, results show that minipublics can sway voters and improve knowledge, above and beyond the effects of a conventional voter pamphlet, but these effects were largely independent of minipublic trust.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

The data will be made available before publication.

Notes

  1. Statistics from https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/ror/15day-gen-2018/historical-reg-stats.pdf

References

  • Achen, C. H., & Bartels, L. M. (2017). Democracy for realists: Why elections do not produce responsive government. Princeton University Press.

  • Adams, B. (2004). Public meetings and the democratic process. Public Administration Review, 64, 43–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bagg, S. (2018). The power of the multitude: Answering epistemic challenges to democracy (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3245406). Social science research network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3245406

  • Bedock, C., & Pilet, J.-B. (2021). Who supports citizens selected by lot to be the main policymakers? A study of French citizens. Government and Opposition, 56(3), 485–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black, L. W. (2008). Deliberation, storytelling, and dialogic moments. Communication Theory, 18(1), 93–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Böker, M. (2017). Justification, critique and deliberative legitimacy: The limits of mini-publics. Contemporary Political Theory, 16(1), 19–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bonilla-Silva, E. (2017). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the United States. Rowman & Littlefield.

  • Boulianne, S. (2018). Mini-publics and public opinion: two survey-based experiments. Political Studies, 66(1), 119–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boulianne, S. (2019). Building faith in democracy: Deliberative events, political trust and efficacy. Political Studies, 67(1), 4–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Braithwaite, V., & Levi, M. (2003). Trust and governance. Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caluwaerts, D., & Reuchamps, M. (2016). Generating democratic legitimacy through deliberative innovations: The role of embeddedness and disruptiveness. Representation, 52(1), 13–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chakravarti, S. (2019). Radical enfranchisement in the jury room and public life. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, H. S. (2020). How citizens evaluate participatory processes: A conjoint analysis. European Political Science Review, 12(2), 239–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, H. S., Karjalainen, M., & Nurminen, L. (2015). Does crowdsourcing legislation increase political legitimacy? The case of avoin ministeriö in finland. Policy & Internet, 7(1), 25–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Craig, S. C., Niemi, R. G., & Silver, G. E. (1990). Political efficacy and trust: A report on the NES pilot study items. Political Behavior, 12, 289–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crosby, N. (1995). Citizens Juries: One solution for difficult environmental questions. In O. Renn, T. Webler, & P. Wiedemann (Eds.), Fairness and competence in citizen participation: Evaluating models for environmental discourse (pp. 157–174). Kluwer Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Curato, N., & Böker, M. (2016). Linking mini-publics to the deliberative system: A research agenda. Policy Sciences, 49(2), 173–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cutler, F., Johnston, R., Carty, R. K., Blais, A., & Fournier, P. (2008). Deliberation, information, and trust: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly as agenda setter. In M. E. Warren & H. Pearse (Eds.), Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly (pp. 166–191). Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • de Tocqueville, A. (1835). Democracy in America. Schocken.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diamond, L. (2015). Facing up to the democratic recession. Journal of Democracy, 26(1), 141–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryzek, J. S., Bächtiger, A., Chambers, S., Cohen, J., Druckman, J. N., Felicetti, A., Fishkin, J. S., Farrell, D. M., Fung, A., Gutmann, A., Landemore, H., Mansbridge, J., Marien, S., Neblo, M. A., Niemeyer, S., Setälä, M., Slothuus, R., Suiter, J., Thompson, D., & Warren, M. E. (2019). The crisis of democracy and the science of deliberation. Science, 363(6432), 1144–1146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Du Bois, W. E. B. (1903). The souls of Black folk: Essays and sketches. A. C. McClurg.

  • Dzur, A. W. (2012). Punishment, participatory democracy, and the jury. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eliasoph, N. 1998. Avoiding politics: How Americans produce apathy in everyday life. Cambridge University Press.

  • Farrell, D. M., & Suiter, J. (2019). Reimagining democracy: Lessons in deliberative democracy from the Irish front line. Cornell University Press.

  • Felicetti, A., Niemeyer, S., & Curato, N. (2016). Improving deliberative participation: Connecting mini-publics to deliberative systems. European Political Science Review, 8(3), 427–448. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773915000119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, J. S. (2018a). Democracy when the people are thinking: revitalizing our politics through public deliberation. Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fishkin, J. S. (2018b). Random assemblies for lawmaking? Prospects and limits. Politics & Society, 46(3), 359–379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foa, R. S., & Mounk, Y. (2017). The signs of deconsolidation. Journal of Democracy, 28(1), 5–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fournier, P., van der Kolk, H., Carty, R. K., Blais, A., & Rose, J. (2011). When citizens decide: Lessons from citizen assemblies on electoral reform. Oxford University Press.

  • Friedman, W., & Schleifer, D. (2019). America’s hidden common ground on divisiveness in American public life. Public Agenda.

  • Fung, A. (2005). Deliberation before the revolution—Toward an ethics of deliberative democracy in an unjust world. Political Theory, 33, 397–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A. (2007). Minipublics: Deliberative designs and their consequences. In S. W. Rosenberg (Ed.), Deliberation, participation and democracy: Can the people govern? (pp. 159–183). Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Garry, J., Pow, J., Coakley, J., Farrell, D., O’Leary, B., & Tilley, J. (2021). The perception of the legitimacy of Citizens’ Assemblies in deeply divided places? Evidence of public and elite opinion from consociational Northern Ireland. Government and Opposition, 1–20.

  • Gastil, J., Bacci, C., & Dollinger, M. (2010). Is deliberation neutral? Patterns of attitude change during “The Deliberative Polls.” Journal of Public Deliberation, 6(2). https://delibdemjournal.org/articles/abstract/107/

  • Gastil, J., Deess, E. P., Weiser, P. J., & Simmons, C. (2010). The jury and democracy: How jury deliberation promotes civic engagement and political participation. Oxford University Press.

  • Gastil, J., & Knobloch, K. (2020). Hope for democracy: How citizens can bring reason back into politics. Oxford University Press.

  • Gastil, J., Knobloch, K. R., Reedy, J., Henkels, M., & Cramer, K. (2018). Assessing the electoral impact of the 2010 oregon citizens’ initiative review. American Politics Research, 46(3), 534–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gastil, J., & Levine, P. (Eds.). (2005). The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the Twenty-First Century. Jossey-Bass.

  • Gastil, J., Rosenzweig, E., Knobloch, K. R., & Brinker, D. (2016). Does the public want mini-publics? Voter responses to the Citizens’ Initiative Review. Communication and the Public, 1(2), 174–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, M., & Page, B. I. (2014). Testing theories of American politics: Elites, interest groups, and average citizens. Perspectives on Politics, 12(03), 564–581.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodin, R. E., & Dryzek, J. S. (2006). Deliberative impacts: The macro-political uptake of mini-publics. Politics and Society, 34, 219–244.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grönlund, K., Bachtiger, A., & Setälä, M. (Eds.). (2014). Deliberative mini-publics: Involving citizens in the democratic process. ECPR Press.

  • Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. F. (2012). The spirit of compromise: Why governing demands it and campaigning undermines it. Princeton University Press.

  • Habermas, J. (1975). Legitimation crisis (T. A. McCarthy, Trans.). Beacon Press.

  • Hacker, J. S., & Pierson, P. (2010). Winner-take-all politics: public policy, political organization, and the precipitous rise of top incomes in the United States. Politics & Society, 38(2), 152–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hale, D. (2016). The jury in America: Triumph and decline. University Press of Kansas.

  • Hamm, J. A., PytlikZillig, L. M., Tomkins, A. J., Herian, M. N., Bornstein, B. H., & Neeley, E. M. (2011). Exploring separable components of institutional confidence. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 29(1), 95–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Herian, M. N., Hamm, J. A., Tomkins, A. J., & Zillig, L. M. P. (2012). Public participation, procedural fairness, and evaluations of local governance: The moderating role of uncertainty. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 22(4), 815–840.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himmelroos, S. (2017). Discourse quality in deliberative citizen forums: A comparison of four deliberative mini-publics. Journal of Public Deliberation, 13(1). http://delibdemjournal.org/article/id/541/

  • Ingham, S. (2013). Disagreement and epistemic arguments for democracy. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 12(2), 136–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingham, S., & Levin, I. (2018a). Can deliberative minipublics influence public opinion? Theory and experimental evidence. Political Research Quarterly, 71(3), 654–667.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ingham, S., & Levin, I. (2018b). Effects of deliberative minipublics on public opinion: Experimental evidence from a survey on social security reform. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 30(1), 51–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iyengar, S., Sood, G., & Lelkes, Y. (2012). Affect, not ideology a social identity perspective on polarization. Public Opinion Quarterly, 76(3), 405–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, D., & Kaufmann, W. (2021). The right kind of participation? The effect of a deliberative mini-public on the perceived legitimacy of public decision-making. Public Management Review, 23(1), 91–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacquet, V., & van der Does, R. (2021). The consequences of deliberative minipublics: Systematic overview, conceptual gaps, and new directions. Representation, 57(1), 131–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, C., & Gastil, J. (2015). Variations of institutional design for empowered deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 11(1). http://www.publicdeliberation.net/jpd/vol11/iss1/art2

  • Johnson, G. F. (2015). Democratic illusion: Deliberative democracy in Canadian public policy. University of Toronto Press.

  • Karpowitz, C. F., & Raphael, C. (2014). Deliberation, democracy, and civic forums: Improving equality and publicity. Cambridge University Press.

  • Karpowitz, C. F., Raphael, C., & Hammond, A. S. (2009). Deliberative democracy and inequality: Two cheers for enclave deliberation among the disempowered. Politics & Society, 37, 576–615.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kavanagh, J., & Rich, M. D. (2018). Truth decay: An initial exploration of the diminishing role of facts and analysis in American public life. RAND Corporation.

  • Knobloch, K. R. (2011). Public sphere alienation: A model for analysis and critique. Javnost the Public, 18(4), 21–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafont, C. (2015). Deliberation, participation, and democratic legitimacy: Should deliberative mini-publics shape public policy? Journal of Political Philosophy, 23(1), 40–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lafont, C. (2020). Democracy without shortcuts: A participatory conception of deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press.

  • Landemore, H. (2013). Democratic reason: Politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C. W. (2014). Do-it-yourself democracy: The rise of the public engagement industry. Oxford University Press.

  • Lee, C. W., McQuarrie, M., & Walker, E. T. (2015). Democratizing inequalities: Dilemmas of the new public participation. NYU Press.

  • Levine, P., Fung, A., & Gastil, J. (2005). Future directions for public deliberation. In J. Gastil & P. Levine (Eds.), The deliberative democracy handbook: Strategies for effective civic engagement in the Twenty-First Century (pp. 271–288). Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levine, P., & Nierras, R. M. (2007). Activists’ views of deliberation. Journal of Public Deliberation, 3, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liu, J. Z. (2018). Juries, public trust in the judiciary, and judicial performance: Evidence from cross-country data (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3127261). Social science research network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3127261

  • Lupia, A. (2015). Uninformed: Why people seem to know so little about politics and what we can do about it. Oxford University Press.

  • Már, K., & Gastil, J. (2020). Tracing the boundaries of motivated reasoning: How deliberative minipublics can improve voter knowledge. Political Psychology, 40(1), 107–127.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martineau, H. (1837). Society in America. Saunders and Otley.

  • Murtin, F., Fleischer, L., Siegerink, V., Aassve, A., Algan, Y., Boarini, R., González, S., Lonti, Z., Grimalda, G., Vallve, R. H., Kim, S., Lee, D., Putterman, L., & Smith, C. (2018). Trust and its determinants: Evidence from the Trustlab experiment (No. 2018/02; OECD Statistics Working Papers). OECD Publishing.

  • Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the other side: Deliberative versus participatory democracy. Cambridge University Press.

  • Nabatchi, T., Gastil, J., Weiksner, M., & Leighninger, M. (Eds.). (2012). Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement. Oxford University Press.

  • Neblo, M. A., Esterling, K. M., & Lazer, D. M. (2018). Politics with the people: Building a directly representative democracy. Cambridge University Press.

  • Ney, S., & Verweij, M. (2014). Exploring the contributions of cultural theory for Improving public deliberation about complex policy problems. Policy Studies Journal, 42(4), 620–643.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, Pippa. 2017. “Is western democracy backsliding? Diagnosing the risks.” The Journal of Democracy 28(2).

  • OECD. (2020). Innovative citizen participation and new democratic institutions: Catching the deliberative wave. OECD Publishing.

  • Pape, M., & Lim, C. (2019). Beyond the “Usual Suspects”? reimagining democracy with participatory budgeting in chicago. Sociological Forum, 34(4), 861–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Parkinson, J. (2006). Deliberating in the real world: Problems of legitimacy in deliberative democracy. Oxford University Press.

  • Parkinson, J., & Mansbridge, J. J. (Eds.). (2012). Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge University Press.

  • Paulis, E., Pilet, J.-B., Panel, S., Vittori, D., & Close, C. (2020). The POLITICIZE dataset: An inventory of deliberative mini-publics (DMPs) in Europe. European Political Science, 1–22.

  • Persson, M., Esaiasson, P., & Gilljam, M. (2013). The effects of direct voting and deliberation on legitimacy beliefs: An experimental study of small group decision-making. European Political Science Review, 5(3), 381–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pilet, J.-B., Bol, D., Paulis, E., Vittori, D., & Panel, S. (2020). Public support for Citizens’ Assemblies selected through sortition: Survey and experimental evidence from 15 countries. SocArXiv.

  • Pincock, H. (2012). Does deliberation make better citizens? In T. Nabatchi, J. Gastil, G. M. Weiksner, & M. Leighninger (Eds.), Democracy in motion: Evaluating the practice and impact of deliberative civic engagement (pp. 135–162). Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Plattner, M. F. (2017). Liberal democracy’s fading allure. Journal of Democracy, 28(4), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pow, J. (2021). Mini-publics and the wider public: The Perceived legitimacy of randomly selecting citizen representatives. Representation. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2021.1880470

  • Pow, J., van Dijk, L., & Marien, S. (2020). It’s not just the taking part that counts: ‘Like me’ perceptions connect the wider public to minipublics. Journal of Deliberative Democracy, 16(2).

  • PytlikZillig, L. M., Tomkins, A. J., Herian, M. N., Hamm, J. A., & Abdel-Monem, T. (2012). Public input methods impacting confidence in government. Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, 6(1), 92–111.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Repucci, S. (2020). The freedom house survey for 2019: The leaderless struggle for democracy. Journal of Democracy, 31(2), 137–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reuchamps, M. (2020). Belgium’s experiment in permanent forms of deliberative democracy | ConstitutionNet. ConstitutionNet.

  • Sanders, L. M. (1997). Against deliberation. Political Theory, 25, 347–376.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Setälä, M., & Smith, G. (2018). Mini-publics and deliberative democracy. In A. Bächtiger, J. S. Dryzek, J. Mansbridge, & M. E. Warren (Eds.), The oxford handbook of deliberative democracy (pp. 300–314). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spada, P., & Ryan, M. (2017). The failure to examine failures in democratic innovations. PS: Political Science & Politics, 50(3), 772–778.

  • Steiner, J., Bächtiger, A., Spörndli, M., & Steenbergen, M. R. (2004). Deliberative politics in action: Analysing parliamentary discourse. Cambridge University Press.

  • Suiter, J., Muradova, L., Gastil, J., & Farrell, D. M. (2020). Scaling up deliberation: Testing the potential of mini-publics to enhance the deliberative capacity of citizens. Swiss Political Science Review, 26(3), 253–272.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vandamme, P. -É., Jacquet, V., Niessen, C., Pitseys, J., & Reuchamps, M. (2018). Intercameral relations in a bicameral elected and sortition legislature. Politics & Society, 46(3), 381–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vidmar, N., & Hans, V. P. (2007). American Juries: The verdict. Prometheus Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. E., & Gastil, J. (2015). Can deliberative minipublics address the cognitive challenges of democratic citizenship? Journal of Politics, 77(2), 562–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warren, M. E., & Pearse, H. (Eds.). (2008). Designing deliberative democracy: The british columbia citizens’ assembly. Cambridge University Press.

  • Young, C., & Holsteen, K. (2017). Model uncertainty and robustness: A computational framework for multimodel analysis. Sociological Methods & Research, 46(1), 3–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The 2018 data collection effort was paid for with funds from the Pennsylvania State University. For assistance with questionnaire item development and/or direct observation of the 2018 CIRs, thanks go to Lala Muradova Huseynova (Katholieke Universiteit Leuven), Jonathan Gruber (the Massachusetts Institute of Technology), Katherine Knobloch (Colorado State University), Michael Morrell (University of Connecticut), Alexander Geisler (Université de Genève), Nenad Stojanović (Université de Genève), Charly Pache, Maija Setälä (Turun yliopisto), Maija Jäske (Turun yliopisto), Henrik Serup Christensen (Åbo Akademi), Jane Suiter and David Farrell (University College Dublin), Arild Ohren (Norges teknisknaturvitenskapelige universitet), David Brinker (Tufts University), Laura Black (Ohio University), and Genevieve Fuji Johnson (Simon Fraser University). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the project sponsors.

Funding

The data was paid for with funds from the Pennsylvania State University.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Duke Kunshan University, No. 8 Duke Avenue, Kunshan, 215316, Jiangsu Province, China

    Kristinn Már

  2. Department of Communication Arts & Sciences and Political Science, The Pennsylvania State University, 230 Sparks Bldg, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    John Gastil

Authors
  1. Kristinn Már
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. John Gastil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristinn Már.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no relevant financial or non-financial interest to disclose.

Ethical Approval

IRB approval from Penn State University.

Consent to Participate

Implied consent obtained via Qualtrics online survey portal.

Code Availability

The code will be made available before publication. All replication files (data and Stata Do files) are available from the Harvard Dataverse: https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KMS0LO

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 188 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Már, K., Gastil, J. Do Voters Trust Deliberative Minipublics? Examining the Origins and Impact of Legitimacy Perceptions for the Citizens’ Initiative Review. Polit Behav 45, 975–994 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09742-6

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-021-09742-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation