Nino’s Deliberative Democracy in the Dock: A Discourse Failure Critique

Abstract

In this essay, I critique Nino’s (1996) view that a democratic majority rule framework best secures impartial consideration of citizens’ interests through deliberative epistemic and moral virtues that lead to the enactment of impartialist policies. Pincione and Teson’s (2006) discourse failure hypothesis, as well as evidence from public economics, show democratic deliberation is self-defeating, due to partialist group interests that distort deliberative democratic discourse, and, in turn, leads to the enactment of partialist legislation. I conclude that impartialist policies are better secured by a constitutional amendment limiting majority rule to public goods legislation and requiring super majority rule for redistributive legislation.