The People’s Lobby
A Model for Online Activist Deliberation
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 21255184 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jeffrey C Swift (North Carolina State University, corresponding author) |
| Year | 2013 |
| Volume | 9 |
| Issue | 2 |
| Publication date | 2013-10-25 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Journal of Deliberative Democracy (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 2634-0488 • E-ISSN: 2634-0488 |
| Publisher | University of Westminster Press (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.16997/jdd.178 |
| OpenAlex | W185055669 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 1 |
| References cited | 8 |
This article presents a model for a “People’s Lobby,” a digital process of deliberation and activism that allows citizens to have their voices heard on important political issues. The model described in this proposal attempts to achieve deliberation for its own sake, but also for the sake of an activist intervention geared toward immediate response—a process commonly called lobbying. In other words, this is a model that combines the fairness and inclusivity of deliberation with the prodding tension of organized activist lobbying. The People’s Lobby might not completely counteract the effects of more conventional corporate lobbying and other mass-organizational pressures, but if it increases the impact of citizens’ reflective and deliberative voices even marginally, it will be well worth the effort
Deliberation · Law and economics · Political science · Politics · Public relations · Sociology · Computer Science · Law · Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering · Psychology · Social Capital and Networks · Social Media and Politics
Democracy Distorted
Democracy in Motion
Saving Persuasion
The Myth of Digital Democracy
Activists’ Views of Deliberation
Are Ballot Initiatives a Good Way to Make Education Policy? The Case of Affirmative Action
Disagreement and epistemic arguments for democracy
Making Direct Democracy Deliberative through Random Assemblies
| Unique citing works | 1 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0.11 |
| Citation span | 2017 - 2017 (1) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |