Yes, We Can (Make It Up on Volume): Answers to Critics

REFERENCES

• Acemoglu, Daron, Suresh Naidu, Pascual Restrepo, and James A. Robinson. 2014. “Democracy Does Cause Growth.” NBER Working Paper No. 20004. http://www.nber.org/papers/w20004.
   Google Scholar
• Aitamurto, Tanja, and Hélène Landemore. Forthcoming. “Democratic Deliberation and Legitimacy in Crowdsourced Processes: The Case of the Law on Off-Road Traffic in Finland.”
   Google Scholar
• Althaus, Scott. 2003. Collective Preferences in Democratic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bartels, Larry. 2010. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Beitz, Charles. 1989. Political Equality: An Essay in Democratic Theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bendor, Jonathan, and John G. Bullock. 2008. “Lethal Incompetence: Voters, Officials, and Systems.” Critical Review 20(1-2): 1–24.10.1080/08913810802316290
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bendor, Jonathan, and Scott E. Page. Forthcoming. “Optimal Groups for Tool Based Problem Solving.”
   Google Scholar
• Berger, William J. 2014. “Voting as Betting: An Endorsement of Landemore's Argument for Majority Rule.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, April 5.
   Google Scholar
• Brennan, Jason. 2014. “How Smart Is Democracy? You Can't Answer that Question a Priori.” Critical Review 26(1-2): 33–58.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brettschneider, Corey. 2006. “The Value Theory of Democracy.” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 5(3): 259–78.10.1177/1470594X06068300
   Google Scholar
• Brettschneider, Corey. 2007. Democratic Rights: The Substance of Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Caplan, Bryan. 2007. The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Christiano, Thomas. 2008. The Constitution of Equality: Democratic Authority and its Limits. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Curşeu, Petru Lucian, Rob J. G. Jansen, and Maryse M. H. Chappin. 2013. “Decision Rules and Group Rationality.” PLoS ONE 8(2): e56454.10.1371/journal.pone.0056454
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Elster, Jon, and Helene Landemore. 2008. “Ideology and Dystopia.” Critical Review 20(3): 273–89.10.1080/08913810802503442
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 1994. “Opinion Leaders, Independence, and Condorcet's Jury Theorem.” Theory and Decision 36(2): 131–62.10.1007/BF01079210
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 1997. “Beyond Fairness and Deliberation: The Epistemic Dimension of Democratic Authority.” In Deliberative Democracy, ed. James Bohman and William Rehg. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 2008. Democratic Authority: A Philosophical Framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Estlund, David. 2014. “Fighting Fire with Fire (Departments).” Paper presented at the Princeton University Workshop on “Epistemic Dimensions of Democracy Revisited,” April 30.
   Google Scholar
• Fishkin, James. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, Howard. 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar
• Gilens, Martin, and Benjamin Page. Forthcoming. “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens.” Perspectives on Politics.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, Robert. 2003. Reflective Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Goodin, Robert. 2005. “Sequencing Deliberative Moments.” Acta Politica 40: 182–96.10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500098
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goeree, Jakob K., and Leeat Yariv. 2011. “An Experimental Study of Collective Deliberation.” Econometrica 79(3): 893–921.10.3982/ECTA8852
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guerrero, Alex. 2013. “Toward a Taxonomy of Political Problems.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Chicago.
   Google Scholar
• Gunn, Paul. 2014. “Democracy and Epistocracy.” Critical Review 26(1-2): 59–79.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hacker, Jacob, and Paul Pierson. 2010. Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class. New York: Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Hong, Lu, and Scott Page. 2004. “Groups of Diverse Problem Solvers Can Outperform Groups of High-Ability Problem Solvers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 16,385–16,389.10.1073/pnas.0403723101
   Google Scholar
• Ingham, Sean. 2013. “Disagreement and Epistemic Arguments for Democracy.” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics 12(2) (May): 135–54.10.1177/1470594X12460642
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, James. 2014. “Models among the Political Theorists.” American Journal of Political Science 58(3): 547–60.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly, Jaime. 2014. “Democracy as the Rule of a Small Many.” Critical Review 26(1-2): 80–91.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kitcher, Philip. 2011. Science in a Democratic Society. New York: Prometheus Books.
   Google Scholar
• Knight, Jack, and James Johnson. 2011. The Priority of Democracy: Political Consequences of Pragmatism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lackey, Jennifer. 2013. “Disagreement and Belief Dependence: Why Numbers Matter.” In The Epistemology of Disagreement: New Essays, ed. David Christensen and Jennifer Lackey. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ladha, Krishna K. 1992. “The Condorcet Jury Theorem, Free Speech, and Correlated Votes.” American Journal of Political Science 36(3): 617–34.10.2307/2111584
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène. 2012. “Collective Wisdom: Old and New.” In Landemore and Elster 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène. 2013. Democratic Reason: Politics, Collective Intelligence, and the Rule of the Many. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène. 2014. “Beyond the Fact of Disagreement? The Epistemic Turn in Deliberative Democracy.” Paper presented at the Princeton University workshop on “Epistemic Dimensions of Democracy Revisited,” April 30.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène, and Jon Elster, eds. 2012. Collective Wisdom: Mechanisms and Principles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Landemore, Hélène, and Scott. E. Page. Forthcoming. “Deliberation and Disagreement.” Politics, Philosophy, and Economics.
   Google Scholar
• Levinson, Sanford. 2014. “A Welcome Defense of Democracy.” Critical Review 26(1-2): 92–100.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• LiCalzi, Marco, and Oktay Surucu. 2012.“The Power of Diversity over Large Solution Spaces.” Management Science 58(7): 1408–1421.10.1287/mnsc.1110.1495
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mackie, Gerry. 2003. Democracy Defended. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• McCormick, John. 2011. Machiavellian Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Moore, Alfred. 2014. “Democratic Reason, Democratic Faith, and the Problem of Expertise.” Critical Review 26(1-2): 101–14.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Morand-Ferron, Julie, and John L. Quinn. 2011. “Larger Groups of Passerines Are More Efficient Problem Solvers in the Wild.” PNAS 108(38): 15,898–15,903.10.1073/pnas.1111560108
   Google Scholar
• Muirhead, Russell. 2014. “The Politics of Getting It Right.” Critical Review 26(1-2): 115–28.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Olken, Benjamin. 2010. “Direct Democracy and Local Public Goods: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Indonesia.” American Political Science Review 104(2): 243–67.10.1017/S0003055410000079
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, Benjamin, and Robert Shapiro. 1992. The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
   Google Scholar
• Page, Scott E. 2007. The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Page, Scott E. Forthcoming. Model Thinking. Manuscript, Center for the Study of Complex Systems, University of Michigan.
   Google Scholar
• Parkinson, John, and Jane Mansbridge. 2012. Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Piketty, Thomas. 2014. Capital in the Twenty-First Century, trans. Arthur Goldhammer. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Quirk, Paul. 2014. “Making It Up on Volume: Are Larger Groups Really Smarter?” Critical Review 26(1–2): 129–50.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Riker, William. 1982. Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schlozman, Kay Lehman, Sidney Verba, and Henry Brady 2012. The Unheavenly Chorus: Unequal Political Voice and the Broken Promise of American Democracy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartzberg, Melissa. 2013. Counting the Many. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Smith, Graham. 2009. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Somin, Ilya. 2014. “Why Political Ignorance Undermines the Wisdom of the Many.” Critical Review 26(1-2): 151–69.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stich, Stephen. 2014a. “The Epistemic Case for Democracy Under Value Diversity.” Unpublished.
   Google Scholar
• Stich, Stephen. 2014b. “When Democracy Meets Pluralism: Landemore's Epistemic Argument for Democracy and the Problem of Value Diversity.” Critical Review 26(1-2): 170–84.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Touchton, Michael, and Brian Wampler. 2013. “Improving Social Well-Being through New Democratic Institutions.” Comparative Political Studies
   Google Scholar
• Urbinati, Nadia. 2014. Democracy Disfigured. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Urbinati, Nadia, and Maria Paula Saffon. 2013. “Procedural Democracy, the Bulwark of Equal Liberty.” Political Theory 41(3): 441–81.10.1177/0090591713476872
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wantchekon, Leonard. 2012. “How Does Policy Deliberation Affect Voting Behavior? Evidence from a Campaign Experiment in Benin.” http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.304.4095&rep=rep1&type=pdf
   Google Scholar
• Warren, Mark E., and Hilary Pearse, eds. 2008. Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Weisberg, Michael. 2013. Simulation and Similarity: Using Models to Understand the World. New York: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar