The study of citizen dialogues primarily focuses on which citizens are included in dialogues, and how those citizens are included in dialogues, despite the fact that the influence perspective is at least as important as the inclusion perspective for the right to political participation. This essay thus addresses the challenge of citizen dialogues regarding their impact on political decisions. This study examines how citizen dialogue as a democratic innovation operates within a local political context, this to answer how the dialogue functions as a channel of political influence. The overall aim is to determine whether democratic innovation can revitalize representative democracy. This is answered by a qualitative case study of one of the dialogues of Huddinge municipality. The study is conducted with semi-structured interviews as primary materials. Graham Smith's institutional democracy theory forms the analysis framework, which is made up of various institutional and democratic ideals. The study's findings show that citizen dialogues, as democratic innovation, work well in a local political context, since the innovation is considered effective and because the innovation has a structure and a clear function in the political system. The results also show that citizens have a good chance of influencing political processes through citizen dialogues. This is mainly due to the fact that the studied citizen dialogue took place at an early stage of the decision-making process, which enabled better conditions for political participation. The results also reveal that there are no mechanisms within the political system that ensure that the participation will have significance. Consequently, it is not possible to draw conclusions as to whether a citizen dialogue is generally a good channel for political influence or not. The conclusions from this study are that a citizen dialogue can be considered to revitalize representative democracy, provided that it both fits in the local political context and has good conditions for integrating citizens' participation in the subsequent political decisions. / Studiet av medborgardialoger kretsar främst kring vilka och hur medborgare inkluderas i dialoger, trots att perspektivet inflytande har en minst lika viktig betydelse för rätten till politiskt deltagande som inkluderingsperspektivet. Uppsatsen tar därmed fasta på medborgardialogens utmaning kring inflytande. Studien undersöker hur medborgardialogen fungerar som demokratisk innovation i en lokalpolitisk kontext, detta för att svara på hur dialogen fungerar som kanal för politiskt inflytande. Det övergripande syftet är huruvida en demokratisk innovation kan vitalisera den representativa demokratin. Detta besvaras genom en kvalitativ fallstudie av en av Huddinge kommuns medborgardialoger. Undersökningen genomförs med semistrukturerade intervjuer som primärmaterial. Med avstamp i Graham Smiths institutionella demokratiteori skapas analysramverket bestående av olika institutionella och demokratiska ideal. Studiens resultat visar att medborgardialogen som demokratisk innovation, fungerar väl i en lokal-politisk kontext då innovationen ses som effektiv och innehar en tydlig funktion inom det politiska systemet. Resultatet visar även att medborgare har en god möjlighet till inflytande på politiska processer. Detta beror främst på att den studerade medborgardialogen skedde i ett tidigt skede av beslutsprocessen, vilket möjliggjorde bättre förutsättningar för politisk delaktighet. Av resultatet framkommer det även att det saknas mekanismer inom det politiska systemet som garanterar att deltagandet blir betydelsefullt. Det går följaktligen inte att dra slutsatsen kring om medborgardialogen i allmänhet är en bra kanal för politiskt inflytande eller inte. Slutsatserna är att medborgardialogen kan ses vitalisera den representativa demokratin, med förbehåll att medborgardialogen både passar i den lokala politiska kontexten och har goda förutsättningar för att integrera medborgarnas deltagande i efterföljande politiska beslut.

The three branches of government rely on public engagement for the prosperity of the nation. Moreover, informed public opinion is a fundamental tenant of democracy. With that in mind, this paper aims to explore the relationship between the Judicial Branch and the public. Specifically, this paper examines and questions the Supreme Court’s efficacy communicating with the public. American constituents are inundated on a daily basis by the clamor of D.C. politics. The twenty four hour news cycle has given way to politicized headlines and exaggerated pundit commentary on contentious national issues. In a technological age where information is instant and the public has become accustomed to soundbites for education, the Supreme Court is left out of place. Both the Executive Branch and Legislative Branch converse directly with the public when necessary. Politicians frequently address their constituents or discuss complicated issues with voters first hand. However, the Supreme Court has rejected this strategy and instead relies almost exclusively on the press to relay their decisions. The judicial branch is the only third of our government without constant communication to the American people. As a result, the judiciary is relatively ignored by its citizens. By discussing a number of landmark cases since the turn of the century, this paper aims to analyze how those decisions were both announced to the public by the media and how the public received them. The Court has certainly adopted the press as an agent of communication. But is the media truly the proper outlet for the Court’s rulings?