Justifying political choice: from probability and institutions to communication

Justifying political choice:
from probability and institutions to communication

Article received: 2023.12.29. Accepted: 2024.01.24

DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2024.02.07

For citation:

Smorgunov L.V. Justifying political choice: from probability and institutions to communication. – Polis. Political Studies. 2024. No. 2. P. 80-95. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17976/jpps/2024.02.07. EDN: VYKYYH


The article is devoted to the study of the dynamics of development of concepts that justify political choice. There is a general turn from the moral justification of political choice to ontological concepts based on the ideas of pragmatic and impartial behavior in the search for criteria for the “correct” decision, which includes the truth and the institutions that ensure it. The epistemic concept of democracy, based on Condorcet's jury theorem, defines the possibility of achieving the correct choice through majority rule voting, implies a competent, independent and sincere voter, which ensures an increase in the probability of the correct choice. The expansion of the composition of participants in political choice increased the role of diversity of knowledge and opinions in the justification, which led to the concept of the “smart plurality”, which ensures the correct choice is made by reducing its overall error through random mass participation. The development of social networks and their argumentative function in disputes have contributed to the transition to the concepts of argumentative networks that ensure the correct option is selected through communication. The identified dynamics allow us to conclude that the concept of politics is reviving its importance as a reasoning.

political choice, epistemic conception of democracy, Condorcet Jury Theorem, probability, choice institutions, smart plurality, network communication, argumentative networks.




Agustln, O.G., & Jorgensen, M.B. (2021). On transversal solidarity: an approach to migration and multi-scalar solidarities. Critical Sociology, 47(6), 857-873. https://doi.org/10.1177/0896920520980053

Berger, W.J., & Sales, A. (2020). Testing epistemic democracy's claims for majority rule. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 19(1), 22-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X19870260

Carrasco, J.A., Miller, E.J., & Wellman, B. (2008). How far and with whom do people socialize? Empirical evidence about distance between social network members. Transportation Research Record, 2076(1), 114-122. https://doi.org/10.3141/2076-13

Castells, M. (2015). Networks of outrage and hope: social movements in the Internet age. Malden: Polity Press. https://doi.org/10.7312/blau17412-091

Castoriadis, C. (1998). The imaginary institution of society. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Chen, J., & Liu, J. (2014). Introduction: Social Computing and Social Networks. Journal of Organizational Computing and Electronic Commerce, 24(2-3), 119-121. https://doi.org/10.1080/10919392.2014.896712

Cohen, J. (1986). An epistemic conception of democracy. Ethics, 97(1), 26-38. https://doi.org/10.1086/292815

Egler, M. (2023). The suspension problem for epistemic democracy. The Philosophical Quarterly, pqad091. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqad091

Erman, E., & Moller, N. (2016). Why democracy cannot be grounded in epistemic principles. Social Theory and Practice, 42(3), 449-473. https://doi.org/10.5840/soctheorpract201642312

Estlund, D. (2008). Democratic authority: a philosophical framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400831548

Goodin, R., & Spiekerman, K. (2018). An epistemic theory of democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198823452.001.0001

Hannon, M. (2022). Are knowledgeable voters better voters? Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 21(1), 29-54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X211065080

Heijden M. van der, & Schalk, J. (2020). Network relationships and standard adoption: diffusion effects in transnational regulatory networks. Public Administration, 98, 768-784. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12627

Hong, L, & Page, S. (2004). Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 101(46), 16385-16389. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0403723101

Hong, L., & Page, S. (2012). Some microfoundations of collective wisdom. In Landemore, H., & Elster, J. (Ed.), Collective Wisdom: Principles and Mechanisms (pp. 56-71). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Howard, P. (2010). The digital origins of dictatorship and democracy information technology and political Islam. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199736416.001.0001

Howard, P. (2015). Pax technica: how the internet of things may set us free or lock us up. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Jung, Y. (2009). Transversality and the philosophical politics of multiculturalism in the age of globalization. Research in Phenomenology, 39(3), 416-437. https://doi.org/10.1163/008555509x12472022364208

Kanngieser, A. (2012). And ... and ... and ... The transversal politics of performative encounters. Deleuze Studies, 6(2), 265-291. https://doi.org/10.3366/dls.2012.0062

Konig, P.D. (2021). Truth versus ignorance in democratic politics: an existentialist perspective on the democratic promise of political freedom. Contemporary Political Theory, 20(3), 614-635. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-020-00436-y

Landemore, H. (2012). Democratic reason: politics, collective intelligence, and the rule of the many. Princeton: Princeton University Press. https://doi.org/10.23943/princeton/9780691155654.001.0001

Levitan, L.C. (2018). Social constraint and self-doubt: mechanisms of social network influence on resistance to persuasion. Political Psychology, 39(4), 957-975. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12458

Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815447

Madeo, D., & Mocenni, Ch. (2020). Self-regulation versus social influence for promoting cooperation on networks. Scientific Reports, 10, 4830. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-61634-7

Madeo, D., Salvatore, S., Mannarini, T., & Mocenni, Ch. (2021). Modeling pluralism and self-regulation explains the emergence of cooperation in networked societies. Scientific Reports, 11, 19226. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98524-5

Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2011). Why do humans reason? Arguments for an argumentative theory. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 34(2), 57-74. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X10000968

Miller, P.R., Bobkowski, P.S., Maliniak, D., & Rapoport, R.B. (2015). Talking politics on Facebook: network centrality and political discussion practices in social media. Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 377-391. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915580135

Moore, A., Invernizzi-Accetti, C., Markovits, E., Pamuk, Z. & Rosenfeld, S. (2020). Beyond populism and technocracy: the challenges and limits of democratic epistemology. Contemporary Political Theory, 19(4), 730-752. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41296-020-00398-1

Morozov, E. (2011). The net delusion: the dark side of Internet freedom. New York: Public Affairs.

Newman, M. (2018). Networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198805090.001.0001

Page, S. (2007). The difference: how the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Peter, F. (2007). Democratic legitimacy and proceduralist social epistemology. Politics, Philosophy & Economics, 6(3), 329-353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470594X07081

Rosenfeld, S. (2019). Democracy and truth. a short history. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Rowlanda, A., Craig-Harea, J., Aultam, V., Ellisb, J., & Bulgren, J. (2017). Social media: how the next generation can practice argumentation. Educational Media International, 54(2), 99-111. https://doi.org/10.1080/09523987.2017.1362818

Schneider, J., Davis, B., & Wyner, A. (2012). Dimensions of Argumentation in Social Media. In ten Teije, A., et al. (Ed.) Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. EKAW 2012. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 7603. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-33876-2_4

Schwartzberg, M. (2015). Epistemic democracy and its challenges. The Annual Review of Political Science, 18, 187-203. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-110113-121908

Semetsky, I. (2008). The transversal communication, or: reconciling science and magic. Cybernetics And Human Knowing, 15(2), 33-48.

Sperber, D., & Mercier, H. (2017). The enigma of reason. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674977860

Walker, M.A., Anand, P., Abbott, R., Fox Tree, J.E., Martell, C., & King, J. (2012). That is your evidence? Classifying stance in online political debate. Decision Support Systems, 53, 719-729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2012.05.032

Woolley, S., & Howard, P. (Ed.) (2019). Computational propaganda: political parties, politicians, and political manipulation on social media. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wu, Y., Chang, S., Zhang, Z., & Deng, Zh. (2017). Impact of social reward on the evolution of the cooperation behavior in complex networks. Scientific Reports, 7, 41076. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep41076

Zuboff, Sh. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: the fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. New York: Public Affairs.


Rawls, J. (2010). A theory of justice. (Russ. ed.: Rawls, J. Teoriya spravedlivosti. Moscow: Izdatel'stvo LKI).

Shapiro, O.A. (2016). Specific features of argumentative discourse of on-line communications: a nonlogical space of the social nets. Logical and Philosophical Studies, 13(4), 126-138. (In Russ.)

Simondon, G. (2022). L'Individu et sa genese physico-biologique. (Russ. ed.: Simondon, G. Individ i ego fiziko-biologicheskii genesis. Moscow: IOI).

Smorgunov, L.V. (2021). Digitalization and network effectiveness of public governability. Political Science (RU), 3, 13-36. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.31249/poln/2021.03.01

Smorgunov, L.V. (2023). Matematika i politika [Mathematics and politics]. In Solov'ev, A.I. (Ed.), Politologiya. Novyi leksikon [Political Science. New Lexicon] (pp. 20-30). (In Russ.)

Solov'ev, A.I. (2021). “Evidence-based policy” and “policy of evidence”: the dilemma of post-Soviet societies. Outlines of Global Transformations: Politics, Economics, Law, 14(5), 61-80. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.23932/2542-0240-2021-14-5-3

Content No. 2, 2024

See also:

Petrov S.I.,
STATE GOVERNANCE AND POLITICAL NETWORKS. – Polis. Political Studies. 2014. No4

Ufimtzev V.V.,
But Has There Been Any Choice? 165. – Polis. Political Studies. 2003. No4

Akhremenko A.S.,
Spatial Modeling of Electoral Choice: Development, Modern Problems and Prospects (I). – Polis. Political Studies. 2007. No1

Efremenko D.V.,
Democracy and Ecological Risk Communication as Problems of Environmental Politics. – Polis. Political Studies. 2006. No6

Shaptalov B.N.,
Russia’s Choice in the Light of “Classic Democracy”. – Polis. Political Studies. 2004. No1



   2024      2023      2022      2021   
   2020      2019      2018      2017      2016   
   2015      2014      2013      2012      2011   
   2010      2009      2008      2007      2006   
   2005      2004      2003      2002      2001   
   2000      1999      1998      1997      1996   
   1995      1994      1993      1992      1991