Authors: Kristinn Már and John Gastil
None of deliberation's potential benefits for democratic governance can be realized on a large scale unless the public believes deliberation itself is appropriate and effective. After all, any procedural solution to democracy’s crisis must contribute its own legitimacy via preexisting public trust in the remedy. Given how crucial legitimacy is to the theory and practice of deliberation, it is surprising how little empirical scholarship has addressed this question in relation to minipublics. We address this gap in the literature by examining the Citizens’ Initiative Review, a deliberative minipublic that provides guidance to a wider electorate. We analyze survey data on the public reception of this process in three US states to answer a series of questions. First, we extend prior research on the efficacy of the Review by examining whether the Citizens’ Statements it produces have an impact on voter behavior and knowledge beyond that of a more conventional voter guide. Second, we test the hypothesis that the impact of these Citizens’ Statements is conditional on voters ascribing legitimacy to the Review underlying them. Third, we test predictions about the ideological and demographic underpinnings of that legitimacy. Finally, we test the effect of varied descriptive framings of the Review on process legitimacy perceptions.
