Similar to Hausman and Welch, the authors of this article investigate nudging with a different approach. A contrast is given between two competing strategies for change: ‘nudging’ (construction of choice architecture) versus the thinking (collective thinking resulting in a better understanding of problems solutions). Whilst at first these two competing strategies may appear to be incompatible, there may be a way to reconcile them. Nudging, a by-product of bounded rationality and behavioural economics, has been used by policy makers as a defence against citizens who are highly susceptible to cognitive limitations. Nudging seeks to mitigate the negative effects that bounded rationality has on undermining or distorting beneficial change messages. The authors contrast this with the ‘think’ strategy, where they question the political legitimacy of nudging in a democratic society. For the authors, political legitimacy rests on public deliberation between free and equal agents. A benefit of the ‘think’ strategy is that true public deliberation has an educational effect, increasing both the knowledge and understanding that citizens have regarding consequences. Furthermore, ‘think’ strategies can mobilise citizens, particularly marginalised groups, to actively engage in conversation about public issues leading to self fulfilling solutions. The emergence of this new conceptualisation of change has resulted in a rise of interest amongst policy makers in new forms of civic engagements. Both of these strategies are not without their limitations. Nudging fails to address fundamental problems regarding issues and thus the outcomes are generally modest. Allowing citizens to freely deliberate on issues however, is time consuming and only truly effective if the conditions for deliberation are satisfactory, another challenge altogether. The authors believe that both strategies can be effective tools for policy makers and are best used in tandem with one another (even suggesting that nudging can lay the foundations for deliberation). This article, when positioned amongst broader literature, provides a strong alternative to a widely used political strategy and offers a compromise that I like to think of as ‘soft nudging’. It thus successfully makes a positive contribution to the field.>