The question, ‘which kind of democratic governance people prefer’, has moved to the forefront in current democracy research. This article uses existing hypotheses on democratic preferences as an input and employs an advanced research design to find out what citizens want if they had engaged in deliberation and reflection. We conducted an online-experiment with a deliberative treatment asking 256 German citizens in 2016. Our findings show that deliberation does not lead to more informed or differential preferences for governance models compared with getting informed or ‘thinking twice’. One reason are high levels of consistency between basic democratic values and governance choices already before the experiment, contradicting our initial assumption that preferences about democracy are generally ill-formed. Overall, our experiment shows that post-deliberative democratic preferences are mainly driven by issue salience and disenchantment with the actual shape of representative democracy. We detect a sort of a ‘populist’ impulse where disenchantment conduces to calls for a stronger voice of the ‘people’ and participatory governance models, irrespective of their concrete design.
AngristJDImbensGWRubinDB (1996) Identification of Causal Effects Using Instrumental Variable. Journal of the American Statistical Association91 (434): 444–455.
2.
ArnesenS (2017) Legitimacy From Decision-Making Influence and Outcome Favorability: Results From General Population Survey Experiments. Political Studies65 (Suppl. 1): 146–161.
3.
BaccaroLBächtigerADevilleM (2016) Small Differences That Matter: The Impact of Discussion Modalities on Deliberative Outcomes. British Journal of Political Science45: 551–566.
4.
BengtssonA (2012) Citizens’ Perceptions of Political Processes: A Critical Evaluation of Preference Consistency and Survey Items. Revista Internacional de Sociología70 (2): 45–64.
5.
BengtssonAChristensenH (2014) ‘Ideals and Actions: Do Citizens’ Patterns of Political Participation Correspond to Their Conceptions of Democracy?Government and Opposition51 (2): 234–260.
6.
BengtssonAMattilaM (2009) Direct Democracy and Its Critics: Support for Direct Democracy and Stealth Democracy in Finland. West European Politics32 (5): 1031–1048.
7.
Bertelsmann Foundation (2014) Vielfältige Demokratie. Kernergebnisse der Studie Partizipation im Wandel – Unsere Demokratie zwischen Wählen, Mitmachen und Entscheiden. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation.
8.
BowlerSToddDKarpJA (2007) Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies. Political Research Quarterly60 (3): 351–362.
9.
CarminesEGStimsonJA (1980) The Two Faces of Issue Voting. American Political Science Review74 (1): 78–91.
10.
ChristensenHSvon SchoultzA (2017) Ideology and Deliberation: An Analysis of Public Support for Deliberative Practices in Finland. International Journal of Public Opinion Research31: 178–194.
11.
ChristensenHSHimmelroosSGrönlundK (2017) Does Deliberation Breed an Appetite for Discursive Participation? Assessing the Impact of First-Hand Experience. Political Studies65 (Suppl. 1): 64–83.
12.
CofféHMichelsA (2014) Education and Support for Representative, Direct and Stealth Democracy. Electoral Studies35: 1–11.
13.
ConversePE (2006) The Nature of Belief Systems in Mass Publics (1964). Critical Review18 (1–3): 1–74.
14.
DaltonRJWelzelC (2014) The Civic Culture Transformed: From Allegiant to Assertive Citizens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
DaltonRJBürklinWPDrummondA (2001) Public Opinion and Direct Democracy. Journal of Democracy12 (4): 141–153.
16.
DaltonRJScarrowSECainBE (2004) Advanced Democracies and the New Politics. Journal of Democracy15 (1): 124–138.
17.
DonovanTKarpJA (2006) Popular Support for Direct Democracy. Party Politics12 (5): 671–688.
18.
EsaiassonPGilljamMPerssonM (2012) Which Decision-Making Arrangements Generate the Strongest Legitimacy Beliefs? Evidence From a Randomised Field Experiment. European Journal of Political Research51: 785–808.
19.
EsaiassonPGilljamMPerssonM (2016) Responsiveness Beyond Policy Satisfaction: Does It Matter to Citizens?Comparative Political Studies50: 739–765.
20.
EsterlingKMNebloMALazerDM (2011) Means, Motive, and Opportunity in Becoming Informed About Politics: A Deliberative Field Experiment With Members of Congress and Their Constituents. Public Opinion Quarterly75 (3): 483–503.
21.
FishkinJS (2009) When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
FontJWojcieszakMNavarroCJ (2015) Participation, Representation and Expertise: Citizen Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes. Political Studies63 (Suppl. 1): 153–172.
23.
FournierPVan der KolkHCartyRK, et al. (2011) When Citizens Decide: Lessons From Citizen Assemblies on Electoral Reform. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
24.
GoldbergSBächtigerA (2019) Wünsche an Demokratie: Politische Einstellungen, Entscheidungsthema und Demokratiepräferenzen von Bürgern. In: MayerlJKrauseTWahlA, et al (eds) Einstellungen und Verhalten in der empirischen Sozialforschung. Analytische Konzepte, Anwendungen und Analyseverfahren. Wiesbaden: Springer, pp.301–324.
25.
HainmuellerJHangartnerDYamamotoT (2015) Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments Against Real-World Behaviour. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America112 (8): 2395–2400.
26.
HibbingJRTheiss-MorseE (2002) Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
27.
JoBMuthénBO (2001) Modeling of Intervention Effects With Noncompliance: A Latent Variable Modeling Approach for Randomized Trials. In: MarcoulidesGASchumackerRE (eds) New Developments and Techniques in Structural Equation Modeling. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp.57–87.
KnightJJohnsonJ (2011) The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
30.
LandwehrCSteinerND (2017) Where Democrats Disagree: Citizens’ Normative Conceptions of Democracy. Political Studies65 (4): 786–804.
31.
MansbridgeJ (2015) A Minimalist Definition of Deliberation. In: HellerPRaoV (eds) Deliberation and Development: Rethinking the Role of Voice and Collective Action in Unequal Societies. Washington, DC: World Bank Group, pp.27–50.
32.
MercierH (2016) The Argumentative Theory: Predictions and Empirical Evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences20 (9): 689–700.
33.
MooreA (2017) Technocracy, Populism, and Deliberative Democracy. Paper Presented at the ECPR General Conference, Oslo, 6-9 September.
34.
NebloMAEsterlingKMKennedyRP, et al. (2010) Who Wants to Deliberate – And Why?American Political Science Review104 (3): 566–583.
35.
NorrisP (1999) Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
36.
SmithGJohnPSturgisP (2013) Taking Political Engagement Online: An Experimental Analysis of Asynchronous Discussion Forums. Political Studies61 (4): 709–730.
37.
StegmuellerD (2013) How Many Countries for Multilevel Modeling? A Comparison of Frequentist and Bayesian Approaches. American Journal of Political Science57 (3): 748–761.
38.
StrandbergKBergJ (2015) Stretching the Boundaries of On-line Deliberation: An Experimental Study Evaluating the Impact of Temporality and Identifiability on Discussion Quality in On-line Deliberations. Javnost – The Public22 (2): 164–180.
39.
VanderMolenK (2017) Stealth Democracy Revisited: Reconsidering Preferences for Less Visible Government. Political Research Quarterly70 (3): 687–698.
40.
WebbP (2013) Who Is Willing to Participate? Dissatisfied Democrats, Stealth Democrats and Populists in the United Kingdom. European Journal of Political Research52 (6): 747–772.
41.
WernerH (2018) If I’ll Win It, I Want It. The Role of Instrumental Considerations in Explaining Public Support for Decision-making through Referendums. Midwestern Political Science Association Annual Meeting, 5–8 April 2018, Chicago.
42.
WojcieszakM (2014) Preferences for Political Decision-Making Processes and Issue Publics. Public Opinion Quarterly78 (4): 917–939.
43.
WyssDBesteS (2017) Artificial Facilitation: Promoting Collective Reasoning Within Asynchronous Discussions. Journal of Information Technology & Politics14 (3): 214–231.
44.
ZallerJFeldmanS (1992) A Simple Theory of the Survey Response: Answering Questions Versus Revealing Preferences. American Journal of Political Science36 (3): 579–561.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
