Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T02:56:33.660Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

References

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 August 2018

Michael A. Neblo ,
Kevin M. Esterling  and
David M. J. Lazer
Michael A. Neblo
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Kevin M. Esterling
Affiliation:
University of California, Riverside
David M. J. Lazer
Affiliation:
Northeastern University/Harvard University
Get access

Summary

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Chapter
Information
Politics with the People
Building a Directly Representative Democracy
 , pp. 153 - 162
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Achen, Christopher H., and Bartels, Larry M.. Democracy for Realists: Why Elections Do Not Produce Responsive Government. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, John. “John Adams to Mercy Otis Warren”. National Archives. April 16, 1776. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/06–04-02–0044Google Scholar
Adams, John. The Works of John Adams, Vol. 4: Novanglus, Thoughts on Government, Defence of the Constitution. Altenmünster, Germany: Jazzybee Verlag, 2015.Google Scholar
Alsalam, Nabeel. “Role of Immigrants in the U.S. Labor Market: An Update.” Washington, DC: Congressional Budget Office, 2010, Accessed May 28, 2018. www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/ftpdocs/116xx/doc11691/07–23-immigrants_in_labor_force.pdf.Google Scholar
Althaus, Scott L. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics: Opinion Surveys and the Will of the People. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Ashley A., Brossard, Dominique, Scheufele, Dietram A., Xenos, Michael A., and Ladwig, Peter. “The ‘nasty Effect’: Online Incivility and Risk Perceptions of Emerging Technologies”. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication: JCMC 19, no. 3 (2014): 373–87.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, André, and Lindell, Marina. “‘Benchmarking’ Deliberative Quality across Sites”. Political Communication 26, Fall (2016): 1–2.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, André, and Parkinson, John. Mapping and Measuring Deliberation: Micro and Marco Knowledge of Deliberative Quality, Dynamics and Contexts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
Bächtiger, André, Niemeyer, Simon, Neblo, Michael, Steenbergen, Marco R., and Steiner, Jürg. “Disentangling Diversity in Deliberative Democracy: Competing Theories, Their Blind Spots and Complementarities”. Journal of Political Philosophy 18, no. 1 (2010): 32–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakshy, Eytan, Messing, Solomon, and Adamic, Lada A.. “Exposure to Ideologically Diverse News and Opinion on Facebook”. Science 348, no. 6239 (June 5, 2015): 1130–2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartels, Larry M. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2009.Google Scholar
Berinsky, Adam J. “Rumors and Health Care Reform: Experiments in Political Misinformation”. British Journal of Political Science 47, no. 2 (2017): 241–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bianco, William T. Trust: Representatives and Constituents. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, Bill. The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America Is Tearing Us Apart. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 2009.Google Scholar
Blake, Aaron. “President Obama's Farewell Speech Transcript, Annotated”. Washington Post. January 10, 2017. www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/10/president-obamas-farewell-speech-transcript-annotated/Google Scholar
Boeckmann, Robert J., and Tyler, Tom R.. “Trust, Respect, and the Psychology of Political Engagement”. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 32, no. 10 (2002): 2067–88.Google Scholar
Burden, Collin, Hysom, Tim, Esterling, Kevin M., Lazer, David, and Neblo, Michael. “2007 Gold Mouse Report: Lessons from the Best Web Sites on Capitol Hill.” Washington, DC: Congressional Management Foundation, 2007.Google Scholar
Cacioppo, John T., Petty, Richard E., and Kao, Chuan Feng. “The Efficient Assessment of Need for Cognition”. Journal of Personality Assessment 48, no. 3 (1984): 306–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cain, Bruce E. Democracy More or Less: America's Political Reform Quandary. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Canes-Wrone, Brandice. Who Leads Whom?: Presidents, Policy, and the Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Daniel P., Esterling, Kevin M., and Lazer, David M. J.. “Friends, Brokers, and Transitivity: Who Informs Whom in Washington Politics?” Journal of Politics 66, no. 1 (2004): 224–46.Google Scholar
Centola, Damon, and Macy, Michael. “Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties”. American Journal of Sociology 113, no. 3 (2007): 702–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chadwick, Andrew. “Web 2.0: New Challenges for the Study of E-Democracy in an Era of Informational Exuberance”. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society 5 (2008): 9–10.Google Scholar
Cheatham, Lauren B., and Tormala, Zakary L.. “The Curvilinear Relationship between Attitude Certainty and Attitudinal Advocacy”. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 43, no. 1 (2017): 3–16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chen, Gina Masullo. Online Incivility and Public Debate: Nasty Talk. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, Dennis, and Druckman, James N.. “Framing Public Opinion in Competitive Democracies”. The American Political Science Review 101, no. 4 (November 2007): 637–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, Joshua. “Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy.” In The Good Polity, edited by Alan Hamlin, and Philip Pettit, 17–34. New York, NY: Basil Blackwell, 1989.Google Scholar
Coleman, Stephen, and Shane, Peter M.. Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, Fay Lomax, Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Jacobs, Lawrence R. “Who Deliberates? Discursive Participation in America.” In Deliberation, Participation and Democracy: Can the People Govern?, edited by Rosenberg, Shawn W., 25–44. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2007.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
DeBonis, Mike. “Rep. Charlie Dent, Outspoken GOP Moderate, Will Not Seek Reelection”. Washington Post. September 07, 2017. www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/09/07/rep-charlie-dent-outspoken-gop-moderate-will-not-seek-reelection/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=a1fbba322114Google Scholar
Delli Carpini, Michael X., and Keeter, Scott. “Measuring Political Knowledge: Putting First Things First”. American Journal of Political Science 37, no. 4 (November 1993): 1179–206.Google Scholar
Artigas, José Gervasio. What Americans Know about Politics and Why It Matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
DePaulo, Bella M., Lindsay, James J., Malone, Brian E., et al. “Cues to Deception”. Psychological Bulletin 129, no. 1 (January 2003): 74–118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dewey, John. The Public and Its Problems. Athens, OH: Swallow Press, 1954.Google Scholar
Diwakar, Rekha. “Local Contest, National Impact: Understanding the Success of India's Aam Aadmi Party in the 2015 Delhi Assembly Election”. Representation 52, no. 1 (2016): 71–80.Google Scholar
Douglas, Arnold R. The Logic of Congressional Action. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1992.Google Scholar
Druckman, James N., Levendusky, Matthew S., and McLain, Audrey. “No Need to Watch: How the Effects of Partisan Media Can Spread via Interpersonal Discussions”. American Journal of Political Science 62, no. 1 (2017): 99–112.Google Scholar
Eliasoph, Nina. Avoiding Politics: How Americans Produce Apathy in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elizabeth, Mendes. “Americans Down on Congress, OK with Own Representative.” Washington, DC: Gallup. May 9, 2013. www.gallup.com/poll/162362/americans-down-congress-own-representative.aspxGoogle Scholar
Elliot, Jonathan. The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution: As Recommended by the General Convention at Philadelphia in 1787. Vol. 2, 1866 (reprinted 1937). Published under the Sanction of Congress, Accessed May 28, 2018. https://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(ed0021)).Google Scholar
Elseay, Jennifer K. Treatment of Battlefield Detainees in the War on Terrorism. Order Code RL31367. Congressional Research Service, updated 2007. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RL31367.pdfGoogle Scholar
Erikson, Robert S., MacKuen, Michael B., and Stimson, James A.. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.Google Scholar
Esterling, Kevin M. “Public Outreach: The Cornerstone of Judicial Independence”. Judicature 82, no. 3 (1998): 112.Google Scholar
Esterling, Kevin M. The Political Economy of Expertise: Information and Efficiency in American National Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esterling, Kevin M., Lazer, David M. J., and Neblo, Michael A.. “Improving Congressional Websites”. Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings, 2010.Google Scholar
Esterling, Kevin M., Lazer, David M. J., and Neblo, Michael A.. “Representative Communication: Web Site Interactivity and Distributional Path Dependence in the U.S. Congress”. Political Communication 28, no. 4 (2011): 409–39.Google Scholar
Esterling, Kevin M., Lazer, David M. J., and Neblo, Michael A.. “Connecting to Constituents”. Political Research Quarterly 66, no. 1 (2012): 102–14.Google Scholar
Esterling, Kevin M., Neblo, Michael A., and Lazer, David M. J.. “Estimating Treatment Effects in the Presence of Noncompliance and Nonresponse: The Generalized Endogenous Treatment Model”. Political Analysis 19, no. 2 (Spring 2011): 205–26.Google Scholar
Artigas, José Gervasio. “Means, Motive, and Opportunity in Becoming Informed about Politics: A Deliberative Field Experiment Involving Members of Congress and Their Constituents”. Public Opinion Quarterly 75, no. 3 (Fall 2011): 483–503.Google Scholar
Esterling, Kevin M., Neblo, Michael A., Lazer, David M. J., and Minozzi, William. “The Role of Familiarity in Democratic Representation: A Field Experiment on Constituent Attitudes toward Members of Congress”. Paper presented at the 2015 meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai. “Minerva: An Electronic Town Hall”. Policy Sciences 3, no. 4 (1972): 457–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni, Amitai, Laudon, Kenneth, and Sara, Lipson. “Participatory Technology: The MINERVA Communications Tree”. Journal of Communication 25, no. 2 (June 1, 1975): 64–74.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Home Style: House Members in Their Districts. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co., 1978.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. The Challenge of Congressional Representation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finkel, Steven E. “Reexamining the ‘Minimal Effects’ Model in Recent Presidential Campaigns”. Journal of Politics 55, no. 1 (1993): 1–21.Google Scholar
Fiorina, Morris P., and Rohde, David W., eds. Home Style and Washington Work: Studies of Congressional Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James S. Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1991.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James S., Luskin, Robert C., and Siu, Alice. “Europolis and the European Public Sphere: Empirical Explorations of a Counterfactual Ideal”. European Union Politics 15, no. 3 (May 16, 2014): 328–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flynn, D. J., Nyhan, Brendan, and Reifler, Jason. “The Nature and Origins of Misperceptions: Understanding False and Unsupported Beliefs about Politics”. Political Psychology 38, no. S1 (February 1, 2017): 127–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fountain, Jane E. Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 2001.Google Scholar
Fox, Justin, and Shotts, Kenneth W.. “Delegates or Trustees? A Theory of Political Accountability”. The Journal of Politics 71, no. 4 (2009): 1225–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup, , “Congress and the Public.” Washington DC: Gallup. Accessed May 28, 2018. www.gallup.com/poll/1600/congress-public.aspxGoogle Scholar
Garfinkle, Adam. Broken: American Political Dysfunction and What to Do about It. Washington, DC: American Interest EBooks, 2013.Google Scholar
Gastil, John, Bacci, Chiara, and Dollinger, Michael. “Is Deliberation Neutral? Patterns of Attitude Change during ‘The Deliberative Polls™’,” Journal of Public Deliberation 6, no. 2 (2010), Article 3.Google Scholar
Gerber, Marlène, Bächtiger, André, Fiket, Irena, Steenbergen, Marco, and Steiner, Jürg. “Deliberative and Non-Deliberative Persuasion: Mechanisms of Opinion Formation in EuroPolis”. European Union Politics 15, no. 3 (2014): 410–29.Google Scholar
Gerber, Marlène, Bächtiger, André, Shikano, Susumu, Reber, Simon, and Rohr, Samuel. “Deliberative Abilities and Influence in a Transnational Deliberative Poll (EuroPolis)”. British Journal of Political Science (2016), Accessed May 28, 2018. www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science/article/deliberativeabilities-and-influence-in-a-transnational-deliberative-poll-europolis/F8488E7C93866843A2D23520572C665A.Google Scholar
Gerber, Elisabeth R., Lupia, Arthur, McCubbins, Mathew D., and Roderick Kiewiet, D.. Stealing the Initiative: How State Government Responds to Direct Democracy. Real Politics in America. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2001.Google Scholar
Goold, Susan Dorr, Neblo, Michael A., Kim, Scott Y. H., et al. “What Is Good Public Deliberation?” The Hastings Center Report 42, no. 2 (2012): 24–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gottfried, Jeffrey, and Shearer, Elisa. “News Use across Social Media Platforms 2016.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Center, 2016.Google Scholar
Granovetter, Mark S. “Strength of Weak Ties”. American Journal of Sociology 78, no. 6 (1973): 1360–80.Google Scholar
Gutmann, Amy, and Thompson, Dennis. Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habermas, Jürgen. Between Facts and Norms: Contributions to a Discourse Theory of Law and Democracy. William Rehg, Translator. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hacker, Jacob S., and Pierson, Paul. Off Center: The Republican Revolution and the Erosion of American Democracy. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
Hampton, Keith N., Rainie, Lee, Lu, Weixu, et al. “Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’.” Washington, DC: Pew Research Internet Project, 2014.Google Scholar
Heclo, Hugh. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” In The New American Political System, edited by King, Anthony, 87–124. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1978.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth. Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes toward American Political Institutions. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hibbing, John R., and Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs about How Government Should Work. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, Paul W. “Statistics and Causal Inference”. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81, no. 396 (1986): 945–60.Google Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., Cook, Fay Lomax, and Carpini, Michael X. Delli. Talking Together: Public Deliberation and Political Participation in America. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacobs, Lawrence R., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. Politicians Don't Pander: Political Manipulation and the Loss of Democratic Responsiveness. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Jarvis, W. Blair G., and Petty, Richard E.. “The Need to Evaluate”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70, no. 1 (1996): 172.Google Scholar
James, Madison. “The Federalist #55.” New York Packet, Accessed May 28, 2018. www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-55Google Scholar
Karpowitz, Christopher F., and Raphael, Chad. Deliberation, Democracy, and Civic Forums: Improving Equality and Publicity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Kathy, Goldschmidt, Cooper, Nicole Folk, and Fitch, Bradford. “Communicating with Congress: How Citizen Advocacy Is Changing Mail Operations on Capitol Hill.” Washington, DC: Congressional Management Foundation, 2011, Accessed May 28, 2018. www.congressfoundation.org/storage/documents/CMF_Pubs/cwc-mail-operations.pdf.Google Scholar
Katz, Elihu, and Paul, Felix Lazarsfeld. Personal Influence: The Part Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York, NY: Free Press, 1955.Google Scholar
Kennedy, Ryan, Sokhey, Anand, Lazer, David, Neblo, Michael, and Esterling, Kevin. “Gender, Deliberation and (Equal?) Voice: Evidence from Online Town Halls”. Paper presented at the 2015 meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association.Google Scholar
Kinder, Donald R. “Communication and Politics in the Age of Information.” In Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, edited by Sears, D. O., Huddy, L., and Jervis, R., 357–93. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003.Google Scholar
King, Gary, Pan, Jennifer, and Roberts, Margaret E.. “How the Chinese Government Fabricates Social Media Posts for Strategic Distraction, Not Engaged Argument”. American Political Science Review 111, no. 3 (August 2017): 484–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kingdon, John W. Congressmen's Voting Decisions. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1989.Google Scholar
Klein, Ezra. “The Single Most Important Fact about American Politics”. Vox. June 13, 2014. www.vox.com/2014/6/13/5803768/pew-most-important-fact-american-politicsGoogle Scholar
Lafont, Cristina. “Can Democracy Be Deliberative & Participatory? The Democratic Case for Political Uses of Mini-Publics”. Daedalus 146, no. 3 (2017): 85–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazer, David, Mergel, Ines, Ziniel, Curtis, Esterling, Kevin M., and Neblo, Michael A.. “The Multiple Institutional Logics of Innovation”. International Public Management Journal 14, no. 3 (2011): 311–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lazer, David, Neblo, M., Esterling, K., and Goldschmidt, K.. “Online Town Hall Meetings: Exploring Democracy in the 21st Century.” Washington, DC: Congressional Management Foundation, 2009.Google Scholar
Lazer, David, Neblo, Michael, and Esterling, Kevin. “The Internet and the Madisonian Cycle: Possibilities and Prospects for Consultative Representation.” In Connecting Democracy: Online Consultation and the Flow of Political Communication, edited by Coleman, Stephen, and Shane, Peter, 265–85. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011.Google Scholar
Lazer, David M., Sokhey, Anand E., Neblo, Michael A., Esterling, Kevin M., and Kennedy, Ryan. “Expanding the Conversation: Multiplier Effects from a Deliberative Field Experiment”. Political Communication 32, no. 4 (2015): 552–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lessig, Lawrence. Republic Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress – And a Plan to Stop It. New York, NY: Twelve, 2011.Google Scholar
Levine, Michael E., and Forrence, Jennifer L.. “Regulatory Capture, Public Interest, and the Public Agenda: Toward a Synthesis”. Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization 6 (1990): 167–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindell, Marina, Bächtiger, André, Grönlund, Kimmo, et al. “What Drives the Polarisation and Moderation of Opinions? Evidence from a Finnish Citizen Deliberation Experiment on Immigration”. European Journal of Political Research 56, no. 1 (2017): 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lodge, Milton, McGraw, Kathleen M., and Stroh, Partick. “An Impression-Driven Model of Candidate Evaluation”. The American Political Science Review 83, no. 2 (June 1989): 399–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur, and Druckman, James N.. “Preference Change in Competitive Political Environments”. Annual Review of Political Science 19, no. 1 (2016): 13–31.Google Scholar
Mann, Thomas E., and Ornstein, Norman J.. It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System Collided with the New Politics of Extremism. New York, NY: Basic Books, 2016.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. Beyond Adversary Democracy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1983.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. “Everyday Talk in the Deliberative System.” In Deliberative Politics: Essays on Democracy and Disagreement, edited by Macedo, Stephen, 1–211. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. “Clarifying the Concept of Representation”. The American Political Science Review 105, no. 3 (August 2011): 621–30.Google Scholar
“A Contingency Theory of Accountability.” In The Oxford Handbook of Public Accountability edited by Bovens, Mark, Goodin, Robert E., and Schillemans, Thomas, 55–68. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press 2014.Google Scholar
Marcus, George E., Russell Neuman, W., and MacKuen, Michael. Affective Intelligence and Political Judgment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali, and Oleske, John. “Race and Public Deliberation”. Political Communication 17, no. 2 (2000): 169–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minozzi, William, Neblo, Michael A., Esterling, Kevin M., and Lazer, David M. J.. “Field Experiment Evidence of Substantive, Attributional, and Behavioral Persuasion by Members of Congress in Online Town Halls.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murphy, DeAmo. The Michigan Chronicle, 2007.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. “Cross-Cutting Social Networks: Testing Democratic Theory in Practice”. American Political Science Review 96, no. 1 (2002): 111–26.Google Scholar
Mutz, Diana C. Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.Google Scholar
NCOA “9 Tips for Town Hall Meetings.” NCOA. August 11, 2017. www.ncoa.org/public-policy-action/advocacy-toolkit/meeting-with-congress/town-hall-tips/Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael A. “Giving Hands and Feet to Morality”. Perspectives on Politics 2, no. 1 (2004): 99–100.Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael A. “Thinking through Democracy: Between the Theory and Practice of Deliberative Politics”. Acta Politica 40, no. 2 (2005): 169–81.Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael A. “Family Disputes: Diversity in Defining and Measuring Deliberation”. Swiss Political Science Review 13, no. 4 (December 1, 2007): 527–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neblo, Michael A. “Philosophical Psychology with Political Intent.” In The Affect Effect, edited by Neuman, W. Russell, George Michael MacKuen, E. Marcus, and Crigler, Ann N., 25–47. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2007.Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael A. “Deliberation's Legitimation Crisis”. Critical Review 23, no. 3 (2011): 405–19.Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael A. “Reform Pluralism as Political Theology and Democratic Technology”. Election Law Journal 13, no. 4 (2014): 526–33.Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael A. Deliberative Democracy between Theory and Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael A., Davis, Daniel O., Gulotty, Robert, Xydias, Christina V., and Blake, Daniel J.. “Measuring Sincerity and the Substantive Content of Arguments in Deliberation.” Program on Networked Governance Working Paper PNG No.PNG08–001.Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael A., Esterling, Kevin M., Kennedy, Ryan P., Lazer, David M. J., and Sokhey, Anand E.. “Who Wants to Deliberate – And Why?” The American Political Science Review 104, no. 3 (August 2010): 566–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neblo, Michael A., Minozzi, William, Esterling, Kevin M., et al. “The Need for a Translational Science of Democracy”. Science 355, no. 6328 (March 3, 2017): 914–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Norris, Pippa. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noveck, Beth Simone. Smart Citizens, Smarter State: The Technologies of Expertise and the Future of Governing. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
Page, Benjamin I., and Shapiro, Robert Y.. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Pariser, Eli. The Filter Bubble: How the New Personalized Web Is Changing What We Read and How We Think. London: Penguin, 2011.Google Scholar
Artigas, José Gervasio. “Paul Lazarsfeld.” Wikiquote, Accessed May 28, 2018. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Paul_LazarsfeldGoogle Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. “Representation and Democracy: Uneasy Alliance”. Scandinavian Political Studies 27, no. 3 (September 1, 2004): 335–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, Richard A. Law, Pragmatism, and Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Pritts, Joy L., Neblo, Michael A., Damschroder, Laura J., and Hayward, Rodney A.. “Veterans’ Views on Balancing Privacy and Research in Medicine: A Deliberative Democratic Study”. Michigan State University Journal of Medicine and Law 12 (2008): 17.Google Scholar
Przybyla, Heidi M. “Republicans Avoid Town Halls after Health Care Votes.” USA Today. April 11, 2017. www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/10/republicans-avoid-town-halls-after-health-care-votes/100286290/Google Scholar
Rauch, Jonathan. “How American Politics Went Insane”. Atlantic. July 2016. http://people.ucls.uchicago.edu/∼cjuriss/US/Documents/US-Jurisson-How-American-Politics-Became-So-Ineffective-Atlantic-2016–07.pdfGoogle Scholar
Rheingold, Howard. The Virtual Community: Finding Connection in a Computerized World. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., 1993.Google Scholar
Rosenblum, Nancy L. On the Side of the Angels: An Appreciation of Parties and Partisanship. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Rubin, Donald. “Estimating Causal Effects of Treatments in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies,” Journal of Educational Psychology 66, no. 5 (1974) 688–701.Google Scholar
Sanders, Lynn M. “Against Deliberation”. Political Theory 25, no. 3 (1997): 347–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Selena, Caldera, and Piper/Bach, Paige. “mmigration Policy in the United States.” Congressional Budget Office, February 2006. Accessed May 28, 2018. www.cbo.gov/publication/17625Google Scholar
Skocpol, Theda. Diminished Democracy: From Membership to Management in American Civic Life. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 2013.Google Scholar
Smith, Samantha. “A Wider Ideological Gap between More and Less Educated Adults”. Pew Research Center for the People and the Press. April 26, 2016. www.people-press.org/2016/04/26/a-wider-ideological-gap-between-more-and-less-educated-adults/Google Scholar
Snyder, Timothy. On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century. New York, NY: Tim Duggan Books, 2017.Google Scholar
Sparrow, Betsy, Liu, Jenny, and Wegner, Daniel M.. “Google Effects on Memory: Cognitive Consequences of Having Information at Our Fingertips”. Science 333, no. (6043) (August 5, 2011): 776–78.Google Scholar
Stasser, Garold, and Titus, William. “Hidden Profiles: A Brief History”. Psychological Inquiry 14, no. 3–4 (2003): 304–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steiner, Jürg, Bächtiger, Andrè, Spörndli, Markus, and Steenbergen, Marco R.. Deliberative Politics in Action: Analysing Parliamentary Discourse. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar
Steinhauer, Jennifer, and Herszenhorn, David M.. “Congress Recesses, Leaving More Stalemates Than Accomplishments”. New York Times. July 14, 2016. www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/congress-recesses-leaving-more-stalemates-than-accomplishments.htmlGoogle Scholar
Suiter, Jane, Farrell, David, and Harris, Clodagh. “The Irish Constitutional Convention: A Case of ‘High Legitimacy’?” In Constitutional Deliberative Democracy in Europe, edited by Reuchamps, Min, and Suiter, Jane, 33–52. London, UK: ECPR Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. Republic.com 2.0. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Sunstein, Cass R. #Republic: Divided Democracy in the Age of Social Media. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Tani, Maxwell. “John Boehner Just Gave an Emotional Last Speech”. Business Insider. October 29, 2015. www.businessinsider.com/john-boehner-last-speech-2015-10Google Scholar
Tetlock, Phillip. E., Skitka, Linda, and Boettger, Richard. “Social and Cognitive Strategies for Coping with Accountability: Conformity, Complexity, and Bolstering”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57, no. 4 (October 1989): 632–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tufekci, Zeynep. Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017.Google Scholar
Twain, Mark, and Tuckey, John S.. Mark Twain's Fables of Man. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1972.Google Scholar
The AP-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, Chicago, US. “Views on Power and Influence in Washington.” APNORC.org. www.apnorc.org/projects/Pages/Power-and-Influence-in-Washington.aspxGoogle Scholar
Volden, Craig, and Wiseman, Alan E.. Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Congress: The Lawmakers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
Neblo, Michael A. “Voteview.com.” Voteview. Accessed May 28, 2018. https://voteview.comGoogle Scholar
Weisman, Jonathan, and Murray, Shallagh. “GOP Plans Hearings on Issue of Immigrants”. Washington Post. June 21, 2006. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/20/AR2006062000926.htmlGoogle Scholar
Wright, Scott. “Politics as Usual? Revolution, Normalization and a New Agenda for Online Deliberation”. New Media & Society 14, no. 2 (August 5, 2011): 244–61.Google Scholar
Zeleny, Jeff. “Democrats Skip Town Halls to Avoid Voter Rage”. New York Times. June 6, 2010. www.nytimes.com/2010/06/07/us/politics/07townhall.htmlGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×