1.
Wagenaar, H.: ‘Is democracy in crisis? No, there’s just a new type of emerging democracy’, openDemocracy blog, https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/hendrik-wagenaar/is-democracy-in-crisis-no-there%E2%80%99s-just-new-type-of-emerging-democracy.
2.
Wolfgang Merkel: Is There a Crisis of Democracy? Democratic Theory. 1, 11–25.
3.
Benjamin R. Barber: Can Democracy Survive Globalization? Government and Opposition. 35, 275–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-7053.00029.
4.
Roos, J.: ‘Beyond the Vote, The Crisis of Representative Democracy’, ROAR Magazine, https://roarmag.org/essays/beyond-the-vote-the-crisis-of-representative-democracy/.
5.
Williams, B.A.: ‘Is Democracy Threatened by the Unchecked Nature of Information on the Internet?’, Miller Center of Public Affairs paper, http://web1.millercenter.org/debates/whitepaper/deb_2010_0518_internet.pdf, (2010).
6.
Crozier, M.J., Huntington, S.P., Watanuki, J.: ‘The Crisis of Democracy: Report on the Governability of Democracies to the Trilateral Commission’, http://trilateral.org/download/doc/crisis_of_democracy.pdf, (1975).
7.
Lijphart, A.: ‘Unequal Participation: Democracy’s Unresolved Dilemma’. American Political Science Review. 91, 1–14.
8.
Norris, P.: Conclusions: The Reinvention of Political Activism? In: Democratic Phoenix: Reinventing Political Activism. pp. 215–224. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610073.015.
9.
Blais, A., Rubenson, D.: ‘The Source of Turnout Decline: New Values or New Contexts?’ Comparative Political Studies. 46, 95–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012453032.
10.
Gray, M., Caul, M.: ‘Declining Voter Turnout in Advanced Industrial Democracies, 1950 to 1997’: The Effects of Declining Group Mobilization. Comparative Political Studies. 33, 1091–1122. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414000033009001.
11.
Lutz, G., Marsh, M.: ‘Introduction: Consequences of low turnout’. Electoral Studies. 26, 539–547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2006.10.001.
12.
Mueller, D.C., Stratmann, T.: ‘The economic effects of democratic participation’. Journal of Public Economics. 87, 2129–2155. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00046-4.
13.
van Biezen, I., Mair, P., Poguntke, T.: ‘Going, going, ... gone? The decline of party membership in contemporary Europe’. European Journal of Political Research. 51, 24–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2011.01995.x.
14.
Whiteley, P.F.: ‘Is the party over? The decline of party activism and membership across the democratic world’. Party Politics. 17, 21–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068810365505.
15.
Scarrow, S.E.: Political Activism and Party Members. In: The Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford University Press (2007). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199270125.003.0034.
16.
van Biezen, I.: ‘Political Parties as Public Utilities’. Party Politics. 10, 701–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068804046914.
17.
Knut Heidar: Party Membership and Participation. In: Handbook of Party Politics. pp. 301–315. Sage (2006).
18.
Dalton, R.J.: ‘Citizenship Norms and the Expansion of Political Participation’. Political Studies. 56, 76–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2007.00718.x.
19.
Hibbing, J.R., Theiss-Morse, E.: Stealth Democracy: Americans’ Beliefs About How Government Should Work. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002).
20.
Norris, P.: Democratic Hopes and Fears. In: Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. pp. 3–18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011).
21.
White, M.: Clicktivism is ruining leftist activism, https://www.micahmwhite.com/clicktivism-seminal-essay/.
22.
Franklin, M.I.: Slacktivism, clicktivism, and ‘real’ social change - OUPblog, http://blog.oup.com/2014/11/slacktivism-clicktivism-real-social-change/.
23.
Halupka, M.: Clicktivism: A Systematic Heuristic. Policy & Internet. 6, 115–132. https://doi.org/10.1002/1944-2866.POI355.
24.
Loader, B.D., Vromen, A., Xenos, M.A.: The networked young citizen: social media, political participation and civic engagement. Information, Communication & Society. 17, 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2013.871571.
25.
Gibson, R., Cantijoch, M.: ‘Conceptualizing and Measuring Participation in the Age of the Internet: Is Online Political Engagement Really Different to Offline?’ The Journal of Politics. 75, 701–716. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022381613000431.
26.
Karpf, D.: ‘Online Political Mobilization from the Advocacy Group’s Perspective: Looking Beyond Clicktivism’. Policy & Internet. 2, 7–41. https://doi.org/10.2202/1944-2866.1098.
27.
Schwindt-Bayer, L.A., Mishler, W.: ‘An Integrated Model of Women’s Representation’. The Journal of Politics. 67, 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2005.00323.x.
28.
Ronald F. Inglehart, Pippa Norris: ‘Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash’, Harvard Kennedy School Faculty Research Working Paper Series.
29.
Sarah Childs, Joni Lovenduski: Political Representation. In: The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics. pp. 489–515. Oxford University Press (2013). https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199751457.013.0019.
30.
Paxton, P., Kunovich, S.: ‘Women’s Political Representation: The Importance of Ideology’. Social Forces. 82, 87–113. https://doi.org/10.1353/sof.2003.0105.
31.
Banducci, S.A., Donovan, T., Karp, J.A.: ‘Minority Representation, Empowerment, and Participation’. The Journal of Politics. 66, 534–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2508.2004.00163.x.
32.
Gay, C.: The Effect of Black Congressional Representation on Political Participation. American Political Science Review. 95, 589–602. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055401003021.
33.
Carnes, N.: ‘Does the Numerical Underrepresentation of the Working Class in Congress Matter?’ Legislative Studies Quarterly. 37, 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00033.x.
34.
Heath, O.: ‘Has the rise of middle class politicians led to the decline of class voting in Britain?’ - British Politics and Policy at LSE blog, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-rise-of-middle-class-politicians-and-the-decline-of-class-voting-in-britain/.
35.
McElwee, S.: ‘The death of working-class politics: How the wealthy conquered Congress and abandoned blue-collar America’ - Salon.com, http://www.salon.com/2014/11/22/the_death_of_working_class_politics_how_the_wealthy_conquered_congress_and_abandoned_blue_collar_america/.
36.
Norris, P.: ‘It’s not just Trump: Authoritarian populism is rising across the West: Here’s why’ - The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/03/11/its-not-just-trump-authoritarian-populism-is-rising-across-the-west-heres-why/.
37.
Jilani, Z.: ‘The Great White Hype: No One Is Energizing the White Working Class, Not Even Donald Trump’ - The Intercept, https://theintercept.com/2016/08/10/the-great-white-hype-no-one-is-energizing-the-white-working-class-not-even-donald-trump/.
38.
Holland, J.: ‘Everyone Gets It Wrong About Donald Trump and White Voters’ - Rolling Stone, http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/everyone-gets-it-wrong-about-donald-trump-and-white-voters-w437410.
39.
Vance, J.D.: ‘How Donald Trump seduced America’s white working class’ - The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/10/jd-vance-hillbilly-elegy-donald-trump-us-white-poor-working-class.
40.
Ford, R.: ‘Older “left-behind” voters turned against a political class with values opposed to theirs’ - The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/left-behind-eu-referendum-vote-ukip-revolt-brexit.
41.
O’Neill, B.: ‘Brexit voters are not thick, not racist: just poor’ - The Spectator, http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/07/brexit-voters-are-not-thick-not-racist-just-poor/.
42.
Mitchell, D.S.: ‘Angry remain voter? Now you know how working-class people feel’ - The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jul/07/angry-remain-voter-working-class-division-britain.
43.
Clarke, H.D., Goodwin, M., Whiteley, P.: ‘Why Britain Voted for Brexit: An Individual-Level Analysis of hte 2016 Referendum Vote’ - paper presented at the EPOP Conference.
44.
Brandenburg, H., Johns, R.: ‘The Declining Representativeness of the British Party System, and Why It Matters’. Political Studies. 62, 704–725. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.12050.
45.
Thomassen, J.: ‘The Blind Corner of Political Representation’. Representation. 48, 13–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2012.653229.
46.
Powell, G.B.: ‘The Ideological Congruence Controversy: The Impact of Alternative Measures, Data, and Time Periods on the Effects of Election Rules’. Comparative Political Studies. 42, 1475–1497. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414009332147.
47.
Golder, M., Lloyd, G.: ‘Re-evaluating the relationship between electoral rules and ideological congruence’. European Journal of Political Research. 53, 200–212. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.12031.
48.
Blais, A., Bodet, M.A.: ‘Does Proportional Representation Foster Closer Congruence Between Citizens and Policy Makers?’ Comparative Political Studies. 39, 1243–1262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414005284374.
49.
Thompson, M.: ‘From Trump to Brexit rhetoric: how today’s politicians have got away with words’ - The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/aug/27/from-trump-to-brexit-rhetoric-how-todays-politicians-have-got-away-with-words.
50.
Joseph N. Cappella and Kathleen Hall Jamieson: ‘News Frames, Political Cynicism, and Media Cynicism’. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 546, 71–84.
51.
Van Aelst, P., Walgrave, S.: ‘Minimal or Massive? The Political Agenda-Setting Power of the Mass Media According to Different Methods’. The International Journal of Press/Politics. 16, 295–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161211406727.
52.
Green, J.: ‘Former BBC head Mark Thompson on Trump, Orwell and what’s gone wrong with political language’, Daily Telegraph, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/books/what-to-read/former-bbc-head-mark-thompson-on-trump-orwell-and-whats-gone-wro/.
53.
Bland, A.: ‘How did the language of politics get so toxic?’, The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jul/31/how-did-the-language-of-politics-get-so-toxic.
54.
Hutton, W.: ‘The way we use language in politics matters’ - The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/24/boris-johnson-eu-referendum-barack-obama-slur.
55.
Johnson, D., Thorsen, E., Wring, D. eds: EU Referendum Analysis 2016: Media, Voters and the Campaign. CSJCC (Bournmouth University), CRCC (Loughborough University), and Political Studies Association.
56.
Beckett, C.: ‘Don’t blame “the media” for the state of the referendum campaign’ - LSE blog, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/06/23/dont-blame-the-media-for-the-state-of-the-referendum-campaign/.
57.
Schuck, A.R.T., Boomgaarden, H.G., de Vreese, C.H.: ‘Cynics All Around? The Impact of Election News on Political Cynicism in Comparative Perspective’. Journal of Communication. 63, 287–311. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcom.12023.
58.
de Vreese, C.H., Elenbaas, M.: ‘Media in the Game of Politics: Effects of Strategic Metacoverage on Political Cynicism’. The International Journal of Press/Politics. 13, 285–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208319650.
59.
Strömbäck, J., Dimitrova, D.V.: ‘Political and Media Systems Matter: A Comparison of Election News Coverage in Sweden and the United States’. The Harvard International Journal of Press/Politics. 11, 131–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1081180X06293549.
60.
Norris, P.: Negative News. In: Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. pp. 169–187. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511973383.010.
61.
Shehata, A.: ‘Game Frames, Issue Frames, and Mobilization: Disentangling the Effects of Frame Exposure and Motivated News Attention on Political Cynicism and Engagement’. International Journal of Public Opinion Research. 26, 157–177. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edt034.
62.
Curran, J., Iyengar, S., Brink Lund, A., Salovaara-Moring, I.: ‘Media System, Public Knowledge and Democracy: A Comparative Study’. European Journal of Communication. 24, 5–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323108098943.
63.
Green-Pedersen, C., Stubager, R.: ‘The Political Conditionality of Mass Media Influence: When Do Parties Follow Mass Media Attention?’ British Journal of Political Science. 40, 663–677.
64.
Walgrave, S., Soroka, S., Nuytemans, M.: ‘The Mass Media’s Political Agenda-Setting Power: A Longitudinal Analysis of Media, Parliament, and Government in Belgium (1993 to 2000)’. Comparative Political Studies. 41, 814–836. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006299098.
65.
McKnight, D.: ‘Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation: A Media Institution with A Mission’. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television. 30, 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1080/01439685.2010.505021.
66.
Caul Kittilson, M., Fridkin, K.: ‘Gender, Candidate Portrayals and Election Campaigns: A Comparative Perspective’, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/politics-and-gender/article/gender-candidate-portrayals-and-election-campaigns-a-comparative-perspective/8A5043A6EFB2D46A138874AB77793C22.
67.
Hayes, D., Lawless, J.L.: ‘There’s much less gender bias in politics than you think. Here’s why’ - The Washington Post (The Monkey Cage), https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/05/24/how-much-does-gender-bias-affect-u-s-elections/.
68.
Harmer, E.: ‘Men Writing about Men: Media and the UK General Election 2015’, Loughborough University Communication Research Centre, http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/general-election/men-writing-about-men-media-and-the-uk-general-election-2015/.
69.
Randers, J.: ‘The tyranny of the short-term: why democracy struggles with issues like climate change’ - Democratic Audit UK, http://www.democraticaudit.com/2015/02/09/the-tyranny-of-the-short-term-why-democracy-struggles-with-issues-like-climate-change/.
70.
Graham Smith: ‘(Not) Dealing with Climate Change: Democracy, Institutional Design, and the Long-Term’ - paper prepared for the Political Studies Association Annual Conference, 2014, https://www.psa.ac.uk/sites/default/files/conference/papers/2015/Democracy%20and%20the%20long-term%20PSA%202015%20version.pdf, (2014).
71.
Charles A. Kupchan: ‘The Democratic Malaise: Globalization and the Threat to the West’. Foreign Affairs. 91, 62–67.
72.
Gerry Stoker: ‘The Myth of Democratic Myopia’ - paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Glasgow, September 2014, http://ecpr.eu/Filestore/PaperProposal/f4c9334a-06a1-46a1-9fc4-94129e4e78eb.pdf.
73.
Andrew Healy and Neil Malhotra: ‘Myopic Voters and Natural Disaster Policy’. The American Political Science Review. 103, 387–406.
74.
William D. Nordhaus: ‘The Political Business Cycle’. The Review of Economic Studies. 42, 169–190 (1975).
75.
Drazen, A.: ‘The Political Business Cycle After 25 Years’. NBER Macroeconomics Annual. 15,.
76.
Franzese, R.J.: ‘Electoral and Partisan Cycles and Economic Policies and Outcomes’. Annual Review of Political Science. 5, 369–421 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.5.112801.080924.
77.
Matthew Flinders: ‘The Blunders of Our Governments, by Anthony King and Ivor Crewe - book review’. Governance. 27, 357–361.
78.
Pete Dorey: The Blunders of Our Governments. West European Politics. 38, 252–254. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2014.962827.
79.
Harmer, C.: ‘Book Review: Called to Account: How Corporate Bad Behaviour and Government Waste Combine to Cost Us Millions, by Margaret Hodge’ - LSE Review of Books, http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lsereviewofbooks/2016/09/16/book-review-called-to-account-how-corporate-bad-behaviour-and-government-waste-combine-to-cost-us-millions-by-margaret-hodge/.
80.
Tobin, P.: ‘The Politics of Climate Change: Can a Deal be Done?’ Political Insight. 6,.
81.
Harvey, F.: ‘Paris climate change agreement: the world’s greatest diplomatic success’ - The Guardian, 14 December 2015, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/13/paris-climate-deal-cop-diplomacy-developing-united-nations.
82.
Sandra Pointel: ‘Was COP21 a failure or a success?’ - Steps Centre., http://steps-centre.org/2015/blog/was-cop21-a-failure-or-a-success/.
83.
Jan Erik Hall: ‘Paris Agreement on Climate Change: A Diplomatic Triumph – How Can It Succeed?’ New Global Studies. 10, 175–181. https://doi.org/10.1515/ngs-2016-0012.
84.
Justin Worland: ‘Paris Climate Change Agreement Set to Take Effect After Quick Ratification Process’, TIME Magazine, http://time.com/4519895/paris-agreement-ratification-european-union/.
85.
Cerny, P.G.: ‘Globalization and the erosion of democracy’. European Journal of Political Research. 36, 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00461.
86.
Weiss, L.: ‘Globalization and State Power’. Development and Society. 29, 1–15.
87.
Goodhart, M.: ‘Democracy, Globalization, and the Problem of the State’. Polity. 33,. https://doi.org/10.2307/3235515.
88.
Hay, C., Rosamond, B.: ‘Globalization, European integration and the discursive construction of economic imperatives’. Journal of European Public Policy. 9, 147–167. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501760110120192.
89.
Hay, C.: ‘What’s Globalization Got to Do with It? Economic Interdependence and the Future of European Welfare States’. Government and Opposition. 41, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2006.00168.x.
90.
Crepaz, M.M.L.: ‘Veto Players, Globalization and the Redistributive Capacity of the State: A Panel Study of 15 OECD Countries’. Journal of Public Policy. 21, 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0143814X01001015.
91.
Yuval Noah Harari: Talking Politics, https://www.acast.com/talkingpolitics/untitledepisode----------.
92.
Bowler, S., Donovan, T.: The Limits of Electoral Reform. Oxford University Press (2013).
93.
Susan Franceschet, Mona Lena Krook, Jennifer M. Piscopo eds: The Impact of Gender Quotas. Oxford University Press (2012).
94.
Arend Lijphart: Electoral Systems: Majority and Plurality Methods Versus Proportional Representation. In: Patterns of democracy: government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. pp. 130–157. Yale University Press, New Haven [Conn.] (2012).
95.
Farrell, D.M.: Electoral systems: a comparative introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK (2011).
96.
Lijphart, A.: Electoral Systems and Party Systems. Oxford University Press (1994).
97.
Renwick, A.: A citizen’s guide to electoral reform. Biteback, London (2011).
98.
Garland, J., Terry, C.: The 2017 General Election: Volatile voting, random results, https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/2017-UK-General-Election-Report.pdf.
99.
Jonathan Boston: Electoral reform in New Zealand: The report of the Royal Commission. Electoral Studies. 6, 105–114 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3794(87)90017-5.
100.
Report of the Independent Commission on the Voting System (the Jenkins Commission), http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140131031506/http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm40/4090/4090.htm.
101.
British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform: Making Every Vote Count: The Case for Electoral Reform in British Columbia, http://citizensassembly.arts.ubc.ca/resources/final_report.pdf, (2004).
102.
Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform: On Ballot, Two Votes: A New Way to Vote in Ontario, http://www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca/assets/One%20Ballot,%20Two%20Votes.pdf, (2007).
103.
Gambetta, D., Warner, S.: ‘The rhetoric of reform revealed (or: If you bite the ballot it may bite back)’. Journal of Modern Italian Studies. 1, 357–376. https://doi.org/10.1080/13545719608454924.
104.
Michael Pinto‐Duschinsky: ‘Send the rascals packing: Defects of proportional representation and the virtues of the Westminster model’. Representation. 36, 117–126.
105.
Katz, Richard S: ‘Electoral Reform in Italy: Expectations and Results’. Acta Politica. 41, 285–299.
106.
Vowles, Jack, Banducci, Susan A., and Karp, Jeffrey A: ‘Forecasting and Evaluating the Consequences of Electoral Change in New Zealand’. Acta Politica. 41, 267–284.
107.
Norris, Pippa: ‘The Impact of Electoral Reform on Women’s Representation’. Acta Politica, suppl. Special issue: the dutch electoral system on trial. 41, 197–213.
108.
Birch, S.: ‘Electoral Systems and Electoral Misconduct’. Comparative Political Studies. 40, 1533–1556. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414006292886.
109.
Persson, T., Tabellini, G., Trebbi, F.: Electoral Rules and Corruption. Journal of the European Economic Association. 1, 958–989. https://doi.org/10.1162/154247603322493203.
110.
Berinsky, A.J.: The Perverse Consequences of Electoral Reform in the United States. American Politics Research. 33, 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X04269419.
111.
Burden, B.C., Canon, D.T., Mayer, K.R., Moynihan, D.P.: ‘Election Laws, Mobilization, and Turnout: The Unanticipated Consequences of Election Reform’. American Journal of Political Science. 58, 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12063.
112.
Paxton, P., Hughes, M.M., Painter, M.A.: Growth in women’s political representation: A longitudinal exploration of democracy, electoral system and gender quotas. European Journal of Political Research. 49, 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2009.01886.x.
113.
Dahlerup, D.: ‘Electoral Gender Quotas: Between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Result’. Representation. 43, 73–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344890701363227.
114.
Schwindt-Bayer, L.A.: Making Quotas Work: The Effect of Gender Quota Laws On the Election of Women. Legislative Studies Quarterly. 34, 5–28. https://doi.org/10.3162/036298009787500330.
115.
De Paola, M., Scoppa, V., Lombardo, R.: ‘Can gender quotas break down negative stereotypes? Evidence from changes in electoral rules’. Journal of Public Economics. 94, 344–353. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2010.02.004.
116.
Zetterberg, P.: ‘Do Gender Quotas Foster Women’s Political Engagement?: Lessons from Latin America’. Political Research Quarterly. 62, 715–730. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908322411.
117.
Rainbow Murray: ‘Quotas for Men: Reframing Gender Quotas as a Means of Improving Representation for All’. The American Political Science Review. 108, 520–532.
118.
Baltrunaite, A., Bello, P., Casarico, A., Profeta, P.: ‘Gender quotas and the quality of politicians’. Journal of Public Economics. 118, 62–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.06.008.
119.
Lewis, P.G.: ‘Size and Local Democracy: Scale Effects in City Politics’. PS: Political Science and Politics. 44, 107–109.
120.
Newton, K.: Is Small Really So Beautiful? Is Big Really So Ugly? Size, Effectiveness, and Democracy in Local Government. Political Studies. 30, 190–206.
121.
Archibugi, D., Koenig-Archibugi, M., Marchetti, R. eds: Global Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011).
122.
Dahl, R.A., Tufte, E.R.: Size and democracy. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1974).
123.
Lowndes, V., Sullivan, H.: How Low Can You Go? Rationales and Challenges for Neighbourhood Governance. Public Administration. 86, 53–74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00696.x.
124.
Rose, L.E.: ‘Municipal Size and Local Nonelectoral Participation: Findings from Denmark, the Netherlands, and Norway’. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy. 20, 829–851.
125.
Hansen, S.W.: ‘Polity Size and Local Political Trust: A Quasi-experiment Using Municipal Mergers in Denmark’. Scandinavian Political Studies. 36, 43–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2012.00296.x.
126.
Blom-Hansen, J., Houlberg, K., Serritzlew, S.: ‘Size, Democracy, and the Economic Costs of Running the Political System’. American Journal of Political Science. 58, 790–803. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12096.
127.
Fjeldstad, O.-H.: ‘Decentralisation and corruption. A review of the literature’ - CMI Working Paper, 2004. Presented at the (2004).
128.
Bardhan, P., Mukherjee, D.: ‘Decentralization, Corruption, and Government Accountability’. In: International handbook on the economics of corruption. pp. 161–188. Edward Elgar, Cheltenham (2006).
129.
Treisman, D.: ‘Decentralization and the Quality of Government’ - UCLA Working Paper, 2002, http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/polisci/faculty/treisman/Papers/DecandGovt.pdf.
130.
Fisman, R., Gatti, R.: ‘Decentralization and corruption: evidence across countries’. Journal of Public Economics. 83, 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047-2727(00)00158-4.
131.
Andrews, R., Boyne, G.A.: Size, Structure and Administrative Overheads: An Empirical Analysis of English Local Authorities. Urban Studies. 46, 739–759. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009102127.
132.
Koenig-Archibugi, M.: ‘Is global democracy possible?’ European Journal of International Relations. 17, 519–542 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1177/1354066110366056.
133.
Barber, B.R.: ‘Can Democracy Survive Globalization?’ Government and Opposition. 35, 275–301.
134.
Dahl, R.A.: ‘Can international organizations be democratic? A skeptic’s view’ (1999). In: Shapiro, I. and Hacker-Cordon, C. (eds.) Democracy’s Edges. pp. 19–36. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1999).
135.
Iris Marion Young: ‘Self-Determination and Global Democracy: A Critique of Liberal Nationalism’. Nomos. 42, 147–183 (2000).
136.
Miller, D.: ‘Democracy’s Domain’. Philosophy & Public Affairs. 37, 201–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1088-4963.2009.01158.x.
137.
Miller, D.: ‘Against Global Democracy’. In: After the nation?: critical reflections on nationalism and post-nationalism. pp. 141–160. Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke (2010).
138.
Goodhart, M.: Civil society and the problem of global democracy. Democratization. 12, 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1351034052000331072.
139.
Geboers, E., Geijsel, F., Admiraal, W., Dam, G. ten: ‘Review of the effects of citizenship education’. Educational Research Review. 9, 158–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.02.001.
140.
Pomares, J., Guzmán, N.: ‘The hardest check - Measuring the impact of fact-checking’, https://www.poynter.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/The-hardest-check-1.pdf, (2015).
141.
Kymlicka, W.: ‘Education for Citizenship’. In: Politics in the Vernacular. pp. 293–316. Oxford University Press (2001).
142.
Crick, B.: ‘The Presuppositions of Citizenship Education’. Journal of the Philosophy of Education. 33, 337–352. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.00141.
143.
Mclaughlin, T.H.: ‘Citizenship Education in England: The Crick Report and Beyond’. Journal of the Philosophy of Education. 34, 541–570. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9752.00194.
144.
Johnson, L., Morris, P.: ‘Towards a framework for critical citizenship education’. The Curriculum Journal. 21, 77–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585170903560444.
145.
Tristan McCowan: Rethinking Citizenship Education: A Curriculum for Participatory Democracy. Continuum (2011).
146.
Heater, D.: ‘The History of Citizenship Education: A Comparative Outline’. Parliamentary Affairs. 55, 457–474.
147.
Hahn, C.L.: ‘Citizenship Education: An empirical study of policy, practices and outcomes’. Oxford Review of Education. 25, 231–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/030549899104233.
148.
Tonge, J., Mycock, A., Jeffery, B.: ‘Does Citizenship Education Make Young People Better-Engaged Citizens?’ Political Studies. 60, 578–602. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9248.2011.00931.x.
149.
Advisory Group on Citizenship: Crick Report: Education for Citizenship and the Teaching of Democracy in Schools, http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/4385/1/crickreport1998.pdf, (22)AD.
150.
National Curriculum (England): Citizenship - key stages 3 and 4, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/239060/SECONDARY_national_curriculum_-_Citizenship.pdf.
151.
Keating, A., Kerr, D., Benton, T., Mundy, E., Lopes, J.: Citizenship Education in England 2001-2010: Young People’s Practices and Prospects for the Future: The Eighth and Final Report from the Citizenship Education Longitudinal Study (CELS), http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/11579/1/DFE-RR059.pdf.
152.
Kerr, D.: ‘We need renewed political commitment to citizenship education and ongoing monitoring of its provision in schools’: Democratic Audit UK blog, http://www.democraticaudit.com/?p=6065.
153.
Oulton, C., Day, V., Dillon, J., Grace, M.: ‘Controversial issues ‐ teachers’ attitudes and practices in the context of citizenship education’. Oxford Review of Education. 30, 489–507. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305498042000303973.
154.
Faulks, K.: ‘Education for citizenship in England’s secondary schools: a critique of current principle and practice’. Journal of Education Policy. 21, 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500391546.
155.
Frazer, E.: ‘Citizenship Education: Anti-Political Culture and Political Education in Britain’. Political Studies. 48, 88–103. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00252.
156.
Thorson, E.: Belief Echoes: The Persistent Effects of Corrected Misinformation. Political Communication. 33, 460–480. https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2015.1102187.
157.
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J.: The Effect of Fact-Checking on Elites: A Field Experiment on U.S. State Legislators. American Journal of Political Science. 59, 628–640. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12162.
158.
Gottfried, J.A., Hardy, B.W., Winneg, K.M., Jamieson, K.H.: Did Fact Checking Matter in the 2012 Presidential Campaign? American Behavioral Scientist. 57, 1558–1567. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764213489012.
159.
Nyhan, B., Reifler, J.: Misinformation and Fact-checking: Research Findings from Social Science, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~nyhan/Misinformation_and_Fact-checking.pdf.
160.
Goss, Z., Renwick, A.: ‘Fact-checking and the EU referendum’ - Constitution Unit Blog, https://constitution-unit.com/2016/08/23/fact-checking-and-the-eu-referendum/.
161.
Mantzarlis, A.: ‘Fact-checking matters - here are 6 metrics to help prove it’, Poynter, http://www.poynter.org/2016/fact-checking-matters-here-are-6-metrics-to-help-prove-it/400582/.
162.
Fields, L.: ‘How the “post-truth” election has put a strain on America’s fact-checkers’ - Vice News, https://news.vice.com/story/how-the-post-truth-election-has-put-a-strain-on-americas-fact-checkers.
163.
Fox, C.: ‘Post-truth politics? Don’t be so patronising’ - The Spectator, http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/11/post-truth-politics-dont-be-so-patronising/.
164.
‘Post-truth politics: Art of the lie’ - The Economist, http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21706525-politicians-have-always-lied-does-it-matter-if-they-leave-truth-behind-entirely-art.
165.
PolitiFact, http://www.politifact.com/.
166.
FactCheck, http://www.factcheck.org/.
167.
Full Fact, https://fullfact.org/.
168.
LeDuc, L.: The politics of direct democracy: referendums in global perspective. Broadview Press, Peterborough, Ont (2003).
169.
Renwick, A.: Written evidence to the PACAC inquiry into ’Lessons Learned from the EU Referendum, http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/public-administration-and-constitutional-affairs-committee/lessons-learned-from-the-eu-referendum/written/36930.pdf.
170.
Lupia, Arthur: ‘Shortcuts versus encyclopedias: Information and voting behavior in California insurance reform elections’. The American Political Science Review. 88,.
171.
Renwick, A., Lamb, M.: "The Quality of Referendum Debate: The UK’s Electoral System Referendum in the Print Media”. Electoral Studies. 32, 294–304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.10.013.
172.
Vowles, J.: ‘Campaign Claims, Partisan Cues, and Media Effects in the 2011 British Electoral System Referendum’. Electoral Studies. 32, 253–264. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2012.10.009.
173.
Pilon, D.: "Investigating Media as a Deliberative Space: Newspaper Opinions about Voting Systems in the 2007 Ontario Provincial Referendum”. Canadian Political Science Review. 3,.
174.
LeDuc, L.: ‘Referendums and deliberative democracy’. Electoral Studies. 38, 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2015.02.007.
175.
John Gastil, Robert Richards, Katherine Knobloch: ‘Vicarious Deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review Influenced Deliberation in Mass Elections’. International Journal of Communication. 8, 62–89 (2014).
176.
Johnson, D., Thorsen, E., Wring, D. eds: EU Referendum Analysis 2016: Media, Voters and the Campaign. CSJCC (Bournmouth University), CRCC (Loughborough University), and Political Studies Association.
177.
Loughborough University Centre for Research in Communication and Culture: ‘Media Coverage of the EU Referendum (Report 5)’ Centre for Research in Communication and Culture, http://blog.lboro.ac.uk/crcc/eu-referendum/uk-news-coverage-2016-eu-referendum-report-5-6-may-22-june-2016/.
178.
Goss, Z., Renwick, A.: ‘Fact-checking and the EU referendum’ - The Constitution Unit Blog, https://constitution-unit.com/2016/08/23/fact-checking-and-the-eu-referendum/.
179.
Brett, W.: ‘It’s Good to Talk: Doing Referendums Differently after the EU Vote’ - Electoral Reform Society report, http://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/publication/Its-good-to-talk-2016-EU-Referendum-Report.pdf.
180.
Kobach, K.W.: The History of Direct Democracy in Switzerland, http://www.athene.antenna.nl/MEDIATHEEK/KOBACH-1.html.
181.
Lutz, G.: ‘The Interaction between Direct and Representative Democracy in Switzerland’. Representation. 42, 45–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344890600583776.
182.
Christin, T., Hug, S., Sciarini, P.: Interests and information in referendum voting: An analysis of Swiss voters. European Journal of Political Research. 41, 759–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.t01-1-00030.
183.
Feld, L.P., Fischer, J.A.V., Kirchgässner, G.: ‘The Effect of Direct Democracy on Income Redistribution: Evidence for Switzerland’. Economic Inquiry. 48, 817–840. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2008.00174.x.
184.
Benz, M., Stutzer, A.: ‘Are Voters Better Informed When They Have a Larger Say in Politics? – Evidence for the European Union and Switzerland’. Public Choice. 119, 31–59. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PUCH.0000024161.44798.ef.
185.
Elster, J.: Introduction. In: Elster, J. (ed.) Deliberative Democracy. pp. 1–18. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998).
186.
Bruce Ackerman, James S. Fishkin: Deliberation Day. In: Fishkin, J.S. and Laslett, P. (eds.) Debating Deliberative Democracy. pp. 7–30. Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Oxford, UK (2003).
187.
Iris Marion Young: ‘Activist Challenges to Deliberative Democracy’. Political Theory. 29, 670–690.
188.
Chantal Mouffe: ‘Deliberative Democracy or Agonistic Pluralism?’ Social Research. 66, 745–758.
189.
Parkinson, J.: ‘Legitimacy Problems in Deliberative Democracy’. Political Studies. 51, 180–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00419.
190.
Cooke, M.: Five Arguments for Deliberative Democracy. Political Studies. 48, 947–969. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00289.
191.
Dryzek, J.S.: Deliberative Democracy in Divided Societies: Alternatives to Agonism and Analgesia. Political Theory. 33, 218–242. https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591704268372.
192.
Smith, G.: Democratic Innovations. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2009).
193.
Smith, G., Wales, C.: ‘Citizens’ Juries and Deliberative Democracy’. Political Studies. 48, 51–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9248.00250.
194.
Warren, M.E., Pearse, H. eds: Designing Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2008).
195.
Niemeyer, S.: ‘The Emancipatory Effect of Deliberation: Empirical Lessons from Mini-Publics’. Politics & Society. 39, 103–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032329210395000.
196.
Caluwaerts, D., Jacquet, V., Reuchamps, M.: ‘Deliberative Democracy and the So What Question: The Effects of Belgium’s G1000’ - paper delivered at the American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, 2016.
197.
Renwick, A.: After the Referendum: Options for a Constitutional Convention, http://www.consoc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/J1847_Constitution_Society_Report_Cover_WEB.pdf.
198.
Böker, M.: ‘Justification, critique and deliberative legitimacy: The limits of mini-publics’. Contemporary Political Theory. (22)AD. https://doi.org/10.1057/cpt.2016.11.
199.
Lafont, C.: ‘Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-publics Shape Public Policy?’ Journal of Political Philosophy. 23, 40–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12031.
200.
Fung, Archon: ‘Deliberation day’ (book review). Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 24, 472–476.
201.
Chad Flanders: ‘Deliberative Dilemmas: A Critique of Deliberation Day from the Perspective of Election Law’. Journal of Law & Politics. 23, 147–170.
202.
David Schkade, Cass R. Sunstein and Reid Hastie: What Happened on Deliberation Day? California Law Review. 95, 915–940.
203.
Parkinson, J., Mansbridge, J. eds: Deliberative Systems: Deliberative Democracy at the Large Scale. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2012).
