Not only is political disagreement widespread within the communication networks of ordinary citizens, but political diversity within these networks is entirely consistent with a theory of democratic politics built on the importance of individual interdependence. Contrary to commonly held theoretical expectations, the persistence of political diversity and disagreement does not mean that interdependence is absent among citizens or that political influence is lacking. Indeed, our analysis ratifies the theoretical vantage point from which we began. Democratic electorates are composed of individually interdependent citizens who depend on one another for political information and guidance, and political communication and persuasion are thus central to citizenship and democratic politics. Political heterogeneity within communication networks is not simply the error term within an explanation for individual opinion and preference that is built on patterns of communication and influence among citizens. The important point is that diversity is frequently produced as the systematic byproduct of political interdependence among citizens. Hence, both agreement and disagreement can be understood within the context of interdependent citizens who are connected through complex networks of political communication.

None of this is intended to suggest that disagreement and political diversity are always or only the consequence of interdependence. Levels of political interdependence depend on the frequency of communication; communication frequency depends on levels of political activation and attentiveness; and hence political interdependence is relaxed under conditions of political quiescence.