Deliberative Democracy and The Secret Ballot: Can We Have Both? Three Areas of Tension

Rasmus Uhrenfeldt

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    49 Downloads (Pure)

    Abstract

    Recently, Bart Engelen and Thomas Nys have offered an analysis of some of the nondeliberative properties of the secret ballot. This marks an interesting theoretical approach that I will build upon in this paper. I do this by identifying and discussing three areas of tension between deliberative ideals and secretive voting. I divide these areas into three separate categories – which I label the justificatory tension, the self-regarding tension, and the sincerity tension. I argue that both the justificatory tension and the self-regarding tension signify substantial areas of tension between the current practice of secretive voting and some of the ideals within deliberative democracy. In the last section of the paper, I argue that one way to reduce the tension between the practice of secretive voting and deliberative ideals is to adopt an epistemic approach to deliberation.
    OriginalsprogEngelsk
    TidsskriftPublic Reason
    Vol/bindVolume 11 (Special Issue)
    Udgave nummerNo. 1
    Sider (fra-til)27-43
    Antal sider18
    ISSN2065-7285
    StatusUdgivet - 2019

    Emneord

    • deliberative democracy
    • secret ballot
    • public voting
    • ethics of voting

    Fingeraftryk

    Dyk ned i forskningsemnerne om 'Deliberative Democracy and The Secret Ballot: Can We Have Both? Three Areas of Tension'. Sammen danner de et unikt fingeraftryk.

    Citationsformater