Post by account_disabled on Feb 20, 2024 10:18:26 GMT
The Whole Represents the Entire Citizenry and It Seems Reasonable to Assume That the Former Can Provide Interesting Information About the Latter to Non-participating Citizens. However This Only Applies if the Information is Selected Collectively by All Members of a Random Sample and is Therefore Representative of the Entire Sample. In Contrast, Since Non-participating Citizens Do Not Select Any Specific Member of the Sample, There is No Individual Representation Relationship Between Them and Specific Members or Specific Subsets of the Group. There is No One-to-one Representation Relationship. Nor From One to Many. They Therefore Have No Reason to Expect Greater Consistency Between Their Own Interests and Values and Those of Any Particular Subset of a Random Sample.
They Have No Good That Are Selected Only From a Subset of the Random Sample, No Matter How Large or Small Each Subset is. So the Problem With Claiming That Disengaged Citizens Should Trust the Advice of the Majority is Not That It Relies on UK Mobile Database the Assumption That a Random Sample Reflects the People. On the Contrary. Precisely if the Reflection Hypothesis is True Then It is Unlikely That All Citizens Are Like the Majority Rather Than the Minority in the Sample. The Statement Therefore Does Not Justify Trusting the Common Advice of Most Alternatives. Even if We Assume That the Selection Reflects the Town as a Whole This Does Not Say Which Subset of the Sample Best Aligns With the Interests and Values of Each Non-participating Citizen.
View In Fact Assuming That the Majority of the Sample is Always Representative of the People and Therefore All Non-participating Citizens Should Blindly Follow Its Recommendations We Need to Adopt the Exclusionary Majoritarianism That Characterizes Populism and Assume That the Interests and Values of a Minority of Participants Are Not Aligned With Those of the Real People Uninvolved Citizens Should Therefore Reject or Ignore It. At the Very Least This Suggests That Both Choice and Village Embodiment Models Are Unable to Adequately Conceptualize the Relationships Between Actors and Non-actors in Small Commons. Small Public Actors Cannot Speak for Us Because We Did Not Elect Them to Do So. They Can't Speak Like Us Because We the People Don't.
They Have No Good That Are Selected Only From a Subset of the Random Sample, No Matter How Large or Small Each Subset is. So the Problem With Claiming That Disengaged Citizens Should Trust the Advice of the Majority is Not That It Relies on UK Mobile Database the Assumption That a Random Sample Reflects the People. On the Contrary. Precisely if the Reflection Hypothesis is True Then It is Unlikely That All Citizens Are Like the Majority Rather Than the Minority in the Sample. The Statement Therefore Does Not Justify Trusting the Common Advice of Most Alternatives. Even if We Assume That the Selection Reflects the Town as a Whole This Does Not Say Which Subset of the Sample Best Aligns With the Interests and Values of Each Non-participating Citizen.
View In Fact Assuming That the Majority of the Sample is Always Representative of the People and Therefore All Non-participating Citizens Should Blindly Follow Its Recommendations We Need to Adopt the Exclusionary Majoritarianism That Characterizes Populism and Assume That the Interests and Values of a Minority of Participants Are Not Aligned With Those of the Real People Uninvolved Citizens Should Therefore Reject or Ignore It. At the Very Least This Suggests That Both Choice and Village Embodiment Models Are Unable to Adequately Conceptualize the Relationships Between Actors and Non-actors in Small Commons. Small Public Actors Cannot Speak for Us Because We Did Not Elect Them to Do So. They Can't Speak Like Us Because We the People Don't.
