UROP Research Mentor Project Submission Portal: Submission #396

Submission information
Submission Number: 396
Submission ID: 8251
Submission UUID: 0ee4cb43-a0af-4dbd-9f88-22f338616c97

Created: Tue, 08/08/2023 - 02:41 PM
Completed: Tue, 08/08/2023 - 03:00 PM
Changed: Thu, 09/14/2023 - 04:58 PM

Remote IP address: 98.230.80.170
Submitted by: Anonymous
Language: English

Is draft: No

Research Mentor Information

Kai Ou
{Empty}
Dr.
kou@fsu.edu
Faculty
Social Sciences and Public Policy
Department of Political Science
Ou.jpg

Additional Research Mentor(s)

{Empty}
{Empty}
{Empty}
{Empty}
{Empty}
{Empty}
{Empty}
{Empty}

Overall Project Details

How Collective Deliberation Affects Democratic Outcomes
Behavioral Political Economy, Game Theory, Laboratory Experiments
No
2
Political Science Majors, Policy Majors, Business Majors, Economics Majors
On FSU Main Campus
{Empty}
Partially Remote
Approximately 5 hours
During business hours
A critical feature of democratic processes is deliberation through representative voices. In the committee context, members often deliberate before voting. On the one hand, collective deliberation facilitates information aggregation and coordinates voting among committee members. In scenarios in which every committee member is sufficiently informed, deliberation may increase the likelihood that the committee collectively chooses the welfare-maximizing policy. On the other hand, collective deliberation affects the committee members’ willingness to be informed in the first place, following a logic of backward induction. Relative to scenarios in which there is no communication, the following hypotheses may hold: First, collective deliberation improves the committee’s likelihood of collectively choosing the welfare-maximizing policy when the average level of information expertise is sufficiently high but undermines this likelihood when most members are uninformed. Second, under unanimity voting where every member can effectively veto, or in scenarios in which there are veto players who can reject the choice of the majority, collective deliberation either undermines or has no effect on the likelihood of choosing the welfare-maximizing policy when at least one veto player is uninformed. However, when all veto players are informed, regardless of the average level of information expertise of non-veto players who cannot veto, collective deliberation improves the committee’s voting outcomes.
Literature review, data collection
Required:
Native in English communication, professional in English writing, knowledgeable about American Politics and Policy
Recommended:
Knowledgeable about game theory and mathematical models, familiar with research designs
I view mentoring as creative work that keeps mentees’ curiosity alive and turns them from passive receptors to active learners. My primary goal in mentoring is to help mentees develop a systematic approach to analyzing their questions. I always aim to let mentees acquire something more important: the passion for understanding politics, the ability to examine conventional wisdom, and the creativity to solve puzzles.
{Empty}

UROP Program Elements

Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
{Empty}
2023
https://cre.fsu.edu/urop-research-mentor-project-submission-portal?element_parents=elements/research_mentor_information/headshot_optional_&ajax_form=1&_wrapper_format=drupal_ajax&token=RQcvz_eDp40nhj3dqvpbqYFWOWjBXQF0lWEBwDvRXj4