Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLevy, Ron
dc.date.accessioned2019-02-11T01:01:03Z
dc.date.available2019-02-11T01:01:03Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.date.modified2014-01-13T00:16:03Z
dc.identifier.issn00333565
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/55526
dc.description.abstractIn its first half, this article considers whether democratic legitimacy entails deliberative requirements during the reform of constitutions. Norms of widespread direct citizen involvement have emerged in the constitutional law and practice of many countries. Yet corresponding standards of deliberation in democratic constitutional reform remain unsettled. Drawing on theories of deliberative democracy, the article suggests that, to count as democratically legitimate, constitutional reform must safeguard the quality of deliberation. This strong claim is tempered by a view of legitimacy not as absolute, but as a proportionate and comparative concept. Even so, the article identifies an onerous double-requirement for constitutional legitimacy: that reforms must be at once widely participatory and robustly deliberative. Based on this theoretical groundwork, the article's second half evaluates a selection of "deliberative voting" innovations. This focus on voting is largely unique in the literature, and is especially relevant, for it is at the stage of voting that deliberative democratic constitutional reform faces the greatest impediments. Prior to the vote, several new kinds of deliberative fora may be able to enhance deliberation (e.g., Citizens' Assemblies); yet most citizens do not become meaningfully involved in reforms until the final, largely solitary act of voting. The prospects for deliberative democratic constitutional reform may therefore remain limited without new approaches to public constitutional voting. For example, a proposal for "integrated referenda" would partially redefine voting and deliberation - traditionally conceived as separate - by merging voting with deliberative fora such as Citizens' Assemblies. Other potential innovations, aiming to prompt informed and purposive reasoning, include mandated online tutorials before the referendum vote; "preliminary values questions", which ask voters to rank the general constitutional values that should drive reform; and "scaled referenda", which present voters with not one but a range of options clearly stating costs and benefits.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.format.extent499979 bytes
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherSweet & Maxwell
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdom
dc.publisher.urihttp://www.sweetandmaxwell.co.uk/Catalogue/ProductDetails.aspx?recordid=469&productid=7106
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationN
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom555
dc.relation.ispartofpageto574
dc.relation.ispartofeditionJuly
dc.relation.ispartofjournalPublic Law
dc.relation.ispartofvolume2013
dc.rights.retentionY
dc.subject.fieldofresearchConstitutional Law
dc.subject.fieldofresearchLaw
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode180108
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode1801
dc.title"Deliberative Voting": Realising Constitutional Referendum Democracy
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.facultyArts, Education & Law Group, Griffith Law School
gro.rights.copyright© The Author(s) 2013. The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. For information about this journal please refer to the journal’s website or contact the author.
gro.date.issued2013
gro.hasfulltextFull Text
gro.griffith.authorLevy, Ron


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record