Isn’t it highly relevant to understand whether the views of the author of the piece we are discussing are consistent or not?
No, it really, really isn’t useful to discuss whether people are wrong generally to evaluate the piece.
They explicitly give a citizen’s assembly as an example of a democratic procedure. Even if it is some other deliberative mechanism followed by a majority vote...
They don’t suggest that the citizen’s assemblies use majority voting, and in fact say that they would make recommendations and suggestions, not vote on what to do. So again, stop conflating democratic with first-past- the-post voting.
It’s pretty hard to square a central role for expertise with a normative idea of political equality.
You keep trying to push this reducto-ad-absurdum as their actual position. First, Zoe explicitly said, responding to you, “The paper never spoke about getting rid of experts or replacing experts with citzens.”
Also, are you actually saying that political equality is fundamentally incompatible with expertise? Because that’s a bold and disturbing claim coming from someone who did a doctoral thesis on democracy—maybe you can cite some sources or explain?
No, it really, really isn’t useful to discuss whether people are wrong generally to evaluate the piece.
They don’t suggest that the citizen’s assemblies use majority voting, and in fact say that they would make recommendations and suggestions, not vote on what to do. So again, stop conflating democratic with first-past- the-post voting.
You keep trying to push this reducto-ad-absurdum as their actual position. First, Zoe explicitly said, responding to you, “The paper never spoke about getting rid of experts or replacing experts with citzens.”
Also, are you actually saying that political equality is fundamentally incompatible with expertise? Because that’s a bold and disturbing claim coming from someone who did a doctoral thesis on democracy—maybe you can cite some sources or explain?