Two epistemic accounts of democratic legitimacy

Offered are two epistemic accounts of deliberative democracy that suggest the reasonable minority has epistemically sound reasons to willingly follow a reasonable majority position. One of these accounts suggests that the truth will be on the side of an overwhelming rational majority. This is because it is less likely that there is a widespread cognitive failure that " contaminates" the moral intuitions of a rational majority than a rational minority. The second account suggests that where there is a rational disagreement, instead of assuming: (a) one side is right and the other wrong, (b) that they are both failing to discover what justice dictates, or (c) that there is no moral fact of the matter, it is sometimes plausible to conclude that both views are compatible with justice. While the competing views can't both be simultaneously realized, it is not contradictory to assert they are both compatible with justice.