Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Reflective Democracy$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Robert E. Goodin

Print publication date: 2003

Print ISBN-13: 9780199256174

Published to Oxford Scholarship Online: November 2003

DOI: 10.1093/0199256179.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM OXFORD SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.oxfordscholarship.com). (c) Copyright Oxford University Press, 2019. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in OSO for personal use (for details see www.oxfordscholarship.com/page/privacy-policy).date: 18 July 2019

Democracy as a Bayesian Persuader

Democracy as a Bayesian Persuader

Chapter:
(p.109) Chapter 6 Democracy as a Bayesian Persuader
Source:
Reflective Democracy
Author(s):

Robert E. Goodin (Contributor Webpage)

Publisher:
Oxford University Press
DOI:10.1093/0199256179.003.0006

Shows how Bayesian thinking should make democratic outcomes so rationally compelling. Bayes's formula provides a mathematical expression for specifying exactly how we ought rationally to update our a priori beliefs in light of subsequent evidence, and the proposal is that voters are modelled in like fashion: votes, let us suppose, constitute (among other things) ‘reports’ of the voter's experiences and perceptions; further suppose that voters accord ‘evidentiary value’ to the reports they receive from one another through those votes; and further suppose that voters are rational, and that part and parcel of their being rational is being prepared to revise their opinions in light of further evidence (including evidence emanating from one another's votes‐cum‐reports). In this process, each of us treats our own experiences and perceptions as one source of evidence, and regards our own report as right; in that sense, we are perfectly sincere when we vote in a particular way, although we also acknowledge that our own experiences and perspectives are particular and peculiar, and hence our own perceptions are themselves inconclusive; because of that, voters striving to behave rationally should sincerely want to adjust their a priori beliefs in the light of all other experiences and perceptions that are reported at an election. Bayesian updating of that sort may well lead people who started out believing (and voting) one way to end up believing (and genuinely wanting implemented) the opposite way, just so long as sufficiently many votes‐cum‐reports point in that different direction; in other words, Bayesian reasoning can, and in politically typical cases ought to, provide people with a compelling reason to accede to the majority verdict. In this way, Bayesianism ‘rationalizes’ majority rule in a pretty strong sense; indeed if anything, it underwrites majoritarianism too strongly.

Keywords:   Bayes's formula, Bayesian persuasion, Bayesian updating, Bayesianism, belief democracy, beliefs, democracy, majoritarianism, revision of opinion, voters, voters’ beliefs

Oxford Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs , and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us .