Search

Epistemic democratic theory often focuses on defending democracy from various forms of elitism, such as epistocracy. However, democracy's informational properties may also be compared with those of the market, and not other forms of political decision-making. While Kevin Elliott's critique of the market's epistemic properties is a welcome contribution that broadens the range of comparisons epistemic democratic theory engages with, Elliott mischaracterizes arguments made by market theorists, overlooks their justifications for employing unrealistic assumptions, and ignores instances where they agree with his critiques and arguments. This paper examines arguments regarding the epistemology of democracy and the market, and discusses the comparative knowledge requirements each competitive system requires of its participants within the wider context of epistemic democratic theory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article uses underutilized individual-level data to examine who supported two third parties, the Grange and Greenbackers, in the final decades of the nineteenth century. We find that Greenbackers attracted individuals employed in non-agrarian occupations and others who were wealthier compared to major party voters. However, the Grange principally appealed to farmers, indicating third parties that are believed to have appealed to similar constituencies often appealed to different electoral groups. Both the Grange and the Greenbackers appealed to voters lacking strong ethnocultural identifications with either major party. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

For Murray Edelman, political realities are largely inaccessible to the public, save by the mediation of symbols generated by elites. Such symbols often create the illusion of political solutions to complex problems—solutions devised by experts, implemented by effective leaders, and undemonstrably successful in their results. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]