The effect of adding deliberation to a direct democratic process on outcome acceptance among the maxi-public

Critique of direct democracy includes a lack of nuance, risk of polarization (Chambers, 2001), and the risk of uninformed voters making decisions based on cues from precisely those elites the referendum tries to bypass (Gastil, 2014; Jäske & Setälä, 2019). These disadvantages have led to calls for the addition of deliberative elements to direct democratic practices (Courant, 2022; Gastil & Richards, 2013; LeDuc, 2015; Warren & Gastil, 2015). Examples include the citizens’ initiative review, where citizens deliberate to come up with a shared statement that aids the maxi-public in deciding their vote (Gastil et al., 2018), and a referendum-elaborating assembly where a deliberative mini-public is tasked with interpreting and operationalizing the referendum result (Hendriks and Wagenaar, 2023). Arguments that deliberation could reduce the problem of uninformed voters and counteract biased societal forces seem promising from a theoretical perspective, but is this something citizens can get behind? This paper studies maxi-public perceptions by looking at outcome acceptance of direct democracy with involvement of a deliberative mini-public. Outcome acceptance is influenced by outcome favorability and procedural fairness (e.g. Arvai & Froschauer, 2010; Brockner, 2002; Doherty & Wolak, 2012; Esaiasson et al., 2019). This study is interested in the effects of innovation design and therefore focuses on procedural fairness but does take outcome favorability into account. We use procedural fairness theory to hypothesize that when adding a deliberative mini-public to a referendum process, there could be two mechanisms at work influencing outcome acceptance. The first centers around participation and treatment with dignity and respect (Tyler, 2000). Magalhães (2017) touches upon a similar criterium; the right to be heard. From this perspective, the maxi-public might be hesitant to accept the intervention of a mini-public into their direct democratic process because they themselves have not been allowed to participate in that part of the process. From this, it follows that the involvement of a deliberative mini-public in a direct democratic practice might decrease outcome acceptance. Procedural fairness is also influenced by neutrality and trustworthiness of authority (Tyler, 2000), or as Magalhães (2017) puts it; transparency and impartiality. Tyler names the justification of decisions as an important element of the trustworthiness of authorities. Justification is precisely what deliberative democracy has to offer and what direct democracy lacks. Even without participating themselves, people can still believe other criteria of procedural fairness have been met, leading them to perceive the process as procedurally fair because they trust a mini-public as neutral authorities. Following this logic, we might expect the addition of deliberation to lead to an increase in outcome acceptance. This study uses a survey experiment to test the effect of adding deliberation to a referendum on outcome acceptance among the maxi-public. A pure referendum at the municipal level will be compared to two conditions in which involvement of a deliberative mini-public is added, either before or after the vote. After the experiment, respondents are asked questions on their perception of the process so we can dive further into the mechanism behind a possible change in outcome acceptance.