When a a group is trying to decide the legitimacy of decision system, it will evaluate it according to the ability the system to benefit individuals and coalitions in the group. For instance, if a minority-elite members will feel that the decision that was taken by the state decision systems produced conditions that cause their ROI to be smaller then they could achieve if they have a state of their own, state or if they feel that their ROI is smaller then majority-elite ROI, they will try to influence the decision making process,and if they will fill that they are unable to influence the decisions, they will delegitimize the state's systems of decision making, in the eyes of other minority members.

Wide scale deliberation is one of the ways to achieve decisions. It's usually more consuming on human resources then inner circles decisions by the government or the parliament. In today's technology and methods of deliberation, a lot of time and effort is needed to achieve conclusive and inclusive decisions by the citizens. On the other hand, if the whole citizenship will participate in the state decisions, it might be more inclusive, but much less effective and therefore result huge consumption of citizens effort, while producing law epistemic value, and therefore such a system might be delegitimized by the majority of the citizens. But such systems will first be delegitimized by conservatives. On the other hand, if most of the decisions will be taken by experts and politicians in the movement and parliament,while leaving the public the decision making circles, such a system will be delegitimized by liberals. Therefore the way to enhance the legitmecy of wide-scale deliberation, we have to invent new tools and practices of deliberation that will enhance the inclusiveness, and the ROI on goods and human-capital and will go along most of the population values, and the process itself, of decision making, should be as easy as can be to participate, and economic on resources as can be.