I don’t think what we and others in the comments are disagreeing on boils down to a disagreement on ‘true democracy’ (not entirely clear what you mean by that) being an unambiguous good.
On my side, I’d say our disagreement is that you believe that more and continuous input = better democratic outcomes and experience for voters while I’m arguing that it is more important that the quality of engagement is good (informed, lots of reasoning time, only engaging at a level people can be realistically expected to understand with the end goal of appointing aligned experts to make most more complex decisions) vs quantity.
If you want to make the true democracy argument you’d need to go some way to prove that my conception of democracy, and the conceptions of democracy held by other competing theorists, are somehow less true to democracy.
You might be better off trying to argue that direct civic choice and personal input into decision making is the ‘good’ of democracy—so more of that is more good democracy.
Happy to help!
I don’t think what we and others in the comments are disagreeing on boils down to a disagreement on ‘true democracy’ (not entirely clear what you mean by that) being an unambiguous good.
On my side, I’d say our disagreement is that you believe that more and continuous input = better democratic outcomes and experience for voters while I’m arguing that it is more important that the quality of engagement is good (informed, lots of reasoning time, only engaging at a level people can be realistically expected to understand with the end goal of appointing aligned experts to make most more complex decisions) vs quantity.
If you want to make the true democracy argument you’d need to go some way to prove that my conception of democracy, and the conceptions of democracy held by other competing theorists, are somehow less true to democracy.
You might be better off trying to argue that direct civic choice and personal input into decision making is the ‘good’ of democracy—so more of that is more good democracy.