====The Ideals of deliberative democracy====
==Values of Deliberation==
see also [[theories The basic values of deliberation]].===Equal Participation===Deliberative theory underlies the notion of ‘strong democracy’ whereby representative institutions should be supplanted by more participatory ones in order to realise the principle of self-government<ref>Pateman, C. (1970). Participation and Democratic Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.</ref><ref>Cohen, J. (1989). Deliberative Democracy and Democratic Legitimacy, in A. Hamlin and P. Pettit (eds.) The Good Polity, Oxford: Blackwell,pp. 17–34.</ref><ref>Fishkin, J.S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation, Yale: Yale University Press.</ref><ref>Barber, B.R. (1998). Three Scenarios for the Future of Technology and Strong Democracy, Political Science Quarterly 113(4): 573–590.</ref>.
Political equality is equal consideration of everyone's preferences, where everyone refers to some relevant population or demos, ''Free and equal consideration means a process of equal counting so that everyone has the same voting power (and anonymous)<ref>[http://www.uvm.edu/~dguber/POLS234/articles/fishkin.pdf Fishkin, J. S., & Luskin, R. C. (2005). Experimenting with a democratic idealfalsifiable knowledge''': Deliberative polling and All public opinion. Acta Politica, 40(3), 284–298.(page 2)]</ref>====Equal influence on Deliberation====in many cases of online discussions there knowledge is a tedency of domination corroborated by a minority of people which is bias for deliberation<ref>Beierle, T. C. (2002). Democracy Online: An Evaluation of the National Dialogue on Public Involvement in EPA decision. RFF Report, Washington.</ref><ref>Davis R. falsification (1999Habermas). The Web of Politics. Oxford, Oxford University Press.Dumoulin,</ref><ref>Jankowski, N. & Van Selm M. public enjoy free public sphere to deliberate (2000Habermas) The promise and Practice of Public Debate in Cyberspace. K. Hacker and J.A.G.M. Van Dijk, Eds. Digital Democracy: Issues of theory and practice. London: Sage.</ref><ref>Jankowski, NDeliberation is free. W. and R. van Os No other force other than reason can be used (2002Cohen). Internet-based Political Discourse: A Case Study of Electronic Democracy in the City of Hoogeveen. Euricom Colloquium: Electronic Networks & Democracy. Nijmegen, The Netherlands: 17.</ref><ref>Jensengroup which deliberate, J. L. deliberate on common concern (2003Habermas). Public Spheres on the Internet: Anarchic or Government- sponsored - A Comparison. Scandinavian Political Studies. 26: 349-374. Kies</ref>.
===Government Following===
====following decisions====
Janssen and Kien defined Deliberation that has impacto on the goverment as "Major" and a disccusion that do no followed by action by the govenment as "minor"<ref>Janssen, D., & Kies, R. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.(p.6)</ref>. For the forum to become major, Janssen and Kien suggest three mechanisms:
# '''visibility''' of the public space and therefore its potential political influence (i.e. the number of persons reading the messages). For example, one can think at the forum hosted by major newspapers such as the New York Times or Le Monde; ii)
# '''Aim''': There are for instance an increasing number of web-based discussion spaces - the e-consultation procedures - aiming at providing feedback on special issues; iii)
# '''status and power''': it can result from the status and the power of the people participating actively or even just passively (just reading) in the online debates. There are, for example, online discussion spaces where political representatives or high level civil servants participate. It is usually not a spontaneous participation, but a participation resulting from an explicit invitation of the organizers.
Massages in major deliberation, “citizenspace”, that was designed to enable citizens to enter into an interactive relationship with Government, had longer average massages then minor deliberation, e-consultation experience organized by the Hansard society on the Stem research. Coleman found that the major forum had an average of 345 words per massage, while the minor forum had average of 79 words per massage<ref>Coleman, S., Hall, N., & Howell, M. (2002). Hearing voices'''Inclusive and equal''': the experience of online public consultations and discussions in UK governance. Hansard Society.</ref>. Janssen and Kies Deliberation is Inclusive (2000Habermas), suggest that major spaces tend without discrimination due to be more respectful and constructive<ref>Janssen, D., & Kieseconomic, Reducation or other causes. (2004). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy Effective participation: Hypotheses , Variables Citizens must have adequate and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches equal opportunities to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 form their preference and place questions on the public agenda and express reasons for one outcome over the other (pp. 1–30Dahl). Florence.Janssen, D., & Kies, R. Their voting is equal (2004Dahl). Online Forums and Deliberative Democracy : Hypotheses , Variables and Methodologies. In Empirical Approaches to Deliberative Politics”, European University Institute, Florence, 22-23 May 2004 (pp. 1–30). Florence.</ref>.====learning and changing decisions=======Basic Democratic settings===Due to the need for the government to follow public decisions and also to make governmental knowledge transparent, an efficient government should be engaged in place before a mannar that will let every participant effective understanding, needed for deliberation can start. When government is corrupt and unable to follow easily public decision due to organization inefficiency, the public will not be able to manifest itself on his bureaucracy. Officials will try to hold information from the public and organization inefficiency will cause projects decided by the people to disappear in the corridors of bureaucracy(Dahl).
To achieve deliberative democracy'''Openess''':The participants must keep open the possibility of changing their minds, and continuing a reason-giving dialogue that can challenge previous decisions and laws (Thompson and Gutmann). '''Political capbilities''':The public develop political competence (Cohen). The public control the people should pressure process of deliberation and the agenda (Dahl). '''learning from following the decisions''':The government to be more efficient follows the public decision, the actions and more the results are transparent, and the public can learn and improve future decisions (Cohen).
==Problems in deliberation==