Deliberative democrats argue that legitimacy comes not just from voting but from reasoned public deliberation preceding votes. Citizens should engage with opposing arguments, not just express pre-existing preferences. Critics note that real democratic deliberation often reinforces existing views or is dominated by those with rhetorical skill and social power. Defenders argue these are failures of implementation, not of the ideal—we should improve deliberation, not abandon it.
The passage suggests that
deliberative democracy has no normative appeal
distinctions between an ideal and its flawed implementations may be relevant to evaluating theoretical approaches
all deliberation successfully changes participants' minds
voting should be eliminated from democratic practice
Correct Answer: B
Choice B is the best answer. Defenders distinguish failures of implementation from the ideal itself.
- Context clues: Critics note failures; defenders say these are implementation failures, not ideal failures.
- Meaning: Evaluating a theory requires distinguishing its ideal from imperfect realizations.
- Verify: "Improve deliberation, not abandon it" shows commitment to ideal despite implementation problems.
💡 Strategy: When defense rests on ideal-implementation distinction, infer that distinction is evaluatively relevant.
Choice A is incorrect because defenders see the ideal as worth implementing better. Choice C is incorrect because critics note deliberation "often reinforces existing views." Choice D is incorrect because deliberation precedes voting, not replaces it.