Editing Democracy (section)

===Contemporary theory===
Among modern political theorists, there are different fundamental conceptions of democracy.

====Aggregation====
The theory of aggregative democracy claims that the aim of the democratic processes is to solicit citizens' preferences and aggregate them together to determine what social policies society should adopt. Therefore, proponents of this view hold that democratic participation should primarily focus on [[voting]], where the policy with the most votes gets implemented. Different variants of aggregative democracy exist. 

According to the minimalist democracy conception, elections are a mechanism for [[Electoral competition|competition]] between [[politician]]s. [[Joseph Schumpeter]] articulated this view famously in his book ''Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy''.<ref name="Schumpeter"/> Contemporary proponents of minimalism include [[William H. Riker]], [[Adam Przeworski]], [[Richard Posner]]. 
According to the [[median voter theorem]] governments will tend to produce laws and policies close to the views of the median voter with half to their left and the other half to their right. [[Anthony Downs]] suggests that ideological political parties are necessary to act as a mediating broker between individuals and governments. Downs laid out this view in his 1957 book ''An Economic Theory of Democracy''.<ref>[[Anthony Downs]], (1957). ''An Economic Theory of Democracy''. HarperCollins College. {{ISBN|978-0-06-041750-5}}.</ref>

According to the theory of [[direct democracy]], on the other hand, citizens should vote directly, not through their representatives, on legislative proposals. Proponents of direct democracy offer varied reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socialises and educates citizens, and [[Public participation (decision making)|popular participation]] can check powerful elites. Proponents view citizens do not rule themselves unless they directly decide laws and policies.

====Polyarchy====
[[Robert A. Dahl]] argues that the fundamental democratic principle is that, when it comes to binding collective decisions, each person in a political community is entitled to have his/her interests be given equal consideration (not necessarily that all people are equally satisfied by the collective decision). He uses the term [[polyarchy]] to refer to societies in which there exists a certain set of institutions and procedures which are perceived as leading to such democracy. First and foremost among these institutions is the regular occurrence of free and open [[elections]] which are used to select representatives who then manage all or most of the public policy of the society. However, these polyarchic procedures may not create a full democracy if, for example, poverty prevents political participation.<ref>[[Robert A. Dahl|Dahl, Robert]], (1989). ''Democracy and its Critics''. New Haven: Yale University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-300-04938-1}}</ref> Similarly, [[Ronald Dworkin]] argues that "democracy is a substantive, not a merely procedural, ideal."<ref>Dworkin, Ronald (2006). ''Is Democracy Possible Here?'' Princeton: Princeton University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-691-13872-5}}, p. 134.</ref>

====Deliberation====
[[Deliberative democracy]] is based on the notion that democracy is government by [[deliberation]]. Unlike aggregative democracy, deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtained through economic wealth or the support of interest groups.<ref>Gutmann, Amy, and Dennis Thompson (2002). ''Why Deliberative Democracy?'' Princeton University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-691-12019-5}}</ref><ref>Joshua Cohen, "Deliberation and Democratic Legitimacy" in Essays on Reason and Politics: Deliberative Democracy Ed. James Bohman and William Rehg (The MIT Press: Cambridge) 1997, 72–73.</ref><ref>Ethan J. "Can Direct Democracy Be Made Deliberative?", ''Buffalo Law Review'', Vol. 54, 2006</ref> If the decision-makers cannot reach [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]] after authentically deliberating on a proposal, then they vote on the proposal using a form of majority rule. [[Citizens' assemblies|Citizens assemblies]] are considered by many scholars as practical examples of deliberative democracy,<ref>{{Cite book|last1=Warren|first1=Mark E.|url=https://philpapers.org/rec/WARDDD-2|title=Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens' Assembly|last2=Pearse|first2=Hilary|date=2008|publisher=Cambridge University Press}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Suiter|first1=Jane|last2=Farrell|first2=David M|last3=O'Malley|first3=Eoin|date=1 March 2016|title=When do deliberative citizens change their opinions? Evidence from the Irish Citizens' Assembly|url=https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512114544068|journal=International Political Science Review|volume=37|issue=2|pages=198–212|doi=10.1177/0192512114544068|s2cid=155953192|issn=0192-5121}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book|last=Smith|first=Graham|url=https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/democratic-innovations/7887AF1095A7546F8AE2E072CEF760F4|title=Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation|date=2009|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=978-0-521-51477-4|series=Theories of Institutional Design|location=Cambridge}}</ref> with a recent [[OECD]] report identifying citizens assemblies as an increasingly popular mechanism to involve citizens in governmental decision-making.<ref>{{Cite web|title=Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave {{!}} en {{!}} OECD|url=https://www.oecd.org/gov/innovative-citizen-participation-and-new-democratic-institutions-339306da-en.htm|access-date=20 November 2020|website=oecd.org|date=9 June 2020}}</ref>