In this essay, I address some questions and challenges brought about by the contributors to this special issue on my book ‘Democracy without Shortcuts’. First, I clarify different aspects of my critique of deep pluralist conceptions of democracy to highlight the core incompatibilities with the participatory conception of deliberative democracy that I defend in the book. Second, I distinguish different senses of the concept of ‘blind deference’ that I use in the book to clarify several aspects and consequences of my critique of epistocratic conceptions of democracy and their search for ‘expertocratic shortcuts’. This in turn helps me briefly address the difficult question of the proper role of experts in a democracy. Third, I address potential uses of empowered minipublics that I did not discuss in the book and highlight some reasons to worry about their lack of accountability. This discussion in turn leads me to address the difficult question of which institutions are best suited to represent the transgenerational collective people who are supposed to own a constitutional project. Finally, I address some interesting suggestions for how to move the book’s project forward.

在本文中，我将在我的《没有捷径的民主》一书中解决本特刊撰稿人带来的一些问题和挑战。'。首先，我澄清我对民主的深层多元化概念的批判的不同方面，以突出与本书所捍卫的协商性民主参与概念的核心不相容之处。其次，我区分了我在书中使用的“盲目顺从”概念的不同含义，以澄清我对民主的epi位主义民主观念的批评及其对“专家主义捷径”的追求的几个方面和后果。反过来，这又帮助我简要地解决了专家在民主制度中的适当角色这一难题。第三，我阐述了我在书中没有讨论过的有权力的小型公共机构的潜在用途，并强调了担心它们缺乏问责制的一些原因。反过来，这种讨论使我解决了一个难题，即哪个机构最适合代表应该拥有宪法项目的跨代集体人民。最后，我提出了一些有趣的建议，以推动本书的发展。