Thread by @JeffreyASachs

I see that many people are already responding to this comment with suggestions from the poli sci literature, but I'd be a poor student indeed of @jtlevy if I didn't highlight some work from the epistemic turn in deliberative democracy.

https://twitter.com/RichardHanania/status/1380131404424441856

First, Helene Landemore's "Democratic Reason". Rule by a philosopher king might sound nice, but there are all kinds of barriers and drawbacks. Landemore makes the case for inclusive decision-making and majority rule over rule by experts.

press.princeton.edu/books/paperbac…

If you don't want to get the book, this working paper more or less sums up the argument.

researchgate.net/profile/Helene…

She's also been interviewed by @ezraklein

nytimes.com/2021/02/23/opi…

and profiled in the New Yorker
newyorker.com/news/the-futur…

Then there's Josiah Ober's "Democracy and Knowledge", part of his trilogy on democratic deliberation and institutional design in Ancient Athens. It's unlike any other book I've ever read, totally impossible to categorize.

classics.stanford.edu/publications/d…

Here's an interview that sums up some of his key arguments.

blog.kleros.io/a-conversation…

There are many other philosophers, historians, political scientists, and psychologists working in this vein (Joshua Cohen, Jon Estlund, David Estland, Hugo Mercier, Melissa Schwartzberg, etc.). It's really interesting stuff.

The general point they make is that inclusive democracy is superior to other forms of government not only on normative grounds or for second order reasons (e.g. to mitigate social conflict), but on *epistemic* grounds: it is most likely to generate good decisions.