Add classical political philosophy references addressing "Dynamic Tools for Digital Democracy: From Static Aggregation to Process Design" critique #1111
+15
−3
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Address critiques from "The Ahistorical Fallacy" paper (Ishibashi, 2025): 1. Habermas reference: Clarify that Polis and similar systems are primarily tools for opinion aggregation and mapping, not deliberation in the transformative Habermasian sense. The lack of reply functionality limits dialectical exchange, so the "consensus" is better understood as revealing pre-existing agreement rather than transforming views. 2. Mouffe's agonistic pluralism: Add reference to Chantal Mouffe's argument that democracy requires visible expression of conflict, not just consensus-seeking. This addresses the concern that bridging systems may inadvertently suppress necessary political conflict. Reference: https://zenodo.org/records/17927680
Address critiques from "The Ahistorical Fallacy" paper (Ishibashi, 2025): 1. Madison's faction (Federalist No. 10): Add warning about the risk that mobilized subgroups may use democratic machinery to infringe on others' rights. Note that digital tools reducing participation friction may inadvertently amplify factional power. 2. Aristotle's ochlocracy: Add reference to classical warning about mob rule and the degeneration of democracy when mediated by passion rather than reason. This is especially relevant in the digital age where information speed privileges emotional reactions. These additions engage with 2500 years of political philosophy on democratic pathologies, addressing the paper's critique that digital democracy initiatives neglect classical political thought. Reference: https://zenodo.org/records/17927680
Address critiques from "The Ahistorical Fallacy" paper (Ishibashi, 2025): Acknowledge that digital democracy platforms suffer from self-selection bias - the "tyranny of the active." While vTaiwan opens participation to all, actual participants tend to be those with strong motivation, digital literacy, and time to engage. In consultations like the Uber case, agenda-setting statements came from a small fraction of highly engaged participants. This addition acknowledges the limitation and suggests complementary mechanisms: sortition-based councils, proactive outreach to underrepresented communities, and attention to who shapes initial discussion framing. Reference: https://zenodo.org/records/17927680
rysh
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Summary
This PR addresses critiques raised in "The Ahistorical Fallacy" (Ishibashi, 2025), a preprint that examines how digital democracy initiatives engage with the history of political thought.
Preprint URL: https://zenodo.org/records/18074832
Changes made:
Habermas reference (5-4-augmented-deliberation.md): Clarify that Polis is primarily a tool for opinion aggregation and mapping, not deliberation in the transformative Habermasian sense
Mouffe's agonistic pluralism (5-4-augmented-deliberation.md): Add reference to the argument that democracy requires visible expression of conflict, not just consensus-seeking
Madison's faction (5-6-voting.md): Add warning from The Federalist No. 10 about mobilized subgroups using democratic machinery against others' rights
Aristotle's ochlocracy (5-6-voting.md): Add classical warning about mob rule when democracy is mediated by passion rather than reason
Self-selection bias (2-2-the-life-of-a-digital-democracy.md): Acknowledge that digital democracy platforms suffer from participation bias toward motivated, digitally literate users