Helene Landemore Livres

To the ancient Greeks, democracy meant gathering in public and debating laws set by a randomly selected assembly of several hundred citizens. To the Icelandic Vikings, democracy meant meeting every summer in a field to discuss issues until consensus was reached. Our contemporary representative democracies are very different. Modern parliaments are gated and guarded, and it seems as if only certain people are welcome. Diagnosing what is wrong with representative government and aiming to recover some of the openness of ancient democracies, Open Democracy presents a new paradigm of democracy. Supporting a fresh nonelectoral understanding of democratic representation, Hélène Landemore demonstrates that placing ordinary citizens, rather than elites, at the heart of democratic power is not only the true meaning of a government of, by, and for the people, but also feasible and, more than ever, urgently needed. -- Cover page 4.

Individual decision making can often be flawed due to misinformation, impulses, or biases, whereas collective decision making tends to be surprisingly accurate. Helene Landemore argues that the strengths of collective decision making provide a compelling case for democracy. She illustrates how democratic processes create a cognitive system that enhances the likelihood of correct decisions made by the many compared to those made by the few. Democracy is valuable not only for its legitimacy and justice but also for its intelligence. Landemore examines two key mechanisms in democratic politics: inclusive deliberation and majority rule. She posits that the truth-tracking capabilities of deliberation are significantly improved by inclusiveness rather than individual competence. This concept is explored within the frameworks of representative democracy and the selection of representatives. Additionally, Landemore analyzes various models of the 'wisdom of crowds' facilitated by majority rule, highlighting the trade-offs between inclusiveness and individual competence in voting. Ultimately, she concludes that when inclusive deliberation and majority rule are combined, they outperform less inclusive methods where decisions are made by a single person or a small group. This work establishes the superiority of democracy as a means of making decisions for the common good.