fbpx
Wikipedia

Citizens' assembly

February 18, 2023

Not to be confused with Popular assembly.
For other uses, see Citizens' assembly (disambiguation).
"policy jury" redirects here. For the governing body of a parish in US, see Police jury.

A citizens' assembly (also known as citizens' jury or citizens' panel or people's jury or policy jury or citizens' initiative review or consensus conference or citizens' convention) is a randomly-selected group of people who deliberate on important public questions.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]

Extinction Rebellion Solidarity with the French Citizens Assembly on Climate

It is a mechanism of participatory action research (PAR) that draws on the symbolism, and some of the practices, of a trial by jury.[9] The purpose is to recruit a cross-section of the public to study the selected issues. Information is presented to provide a common set of facts, available options are considered and recommendations are forwarded to the appropriate authority. Some states implement only those recommendations approved in a subsequent referendum.

Assemblies aim to increase public trust in the convening government[10] by remedying the "divergence of interests" that arises between elected representatives and the electorate, as well as "a lack in deliberation in legislatures."[11]

The use of assemblies is related to the traditions of deliberative democracy and popular sovereignty in political theory. While earliest confirmed example took place in Athenian democracy, they have become newly relevant both to theorists and politicians as part of a deliberative turn in democratic theory. This turn began in the 1980s, shifting from the predominant theoretical framework of participatory democracy toward deliberative democracy, initially in the work of Jane Mansbridge and Joseph M. Bessette.[12] Assemblies have been used in countries such as Canada and the Netherlands to deliberate for example, on the system used to elect politicians.

Ordinarily, assemblies are state initiatives. However, independent assemblies, such as the Le G1000 in Belgium or the We The Citizens project in Ireland have convened. The People's Parliament was a UK forum of randomly selected citizens presented as a television program. Citizen's Assemblies have now been convened on a global level.

Assemblies have been proposed as a potential solution to dealing with divisive and highly politicised issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, Brexit, and decarbonisation.

Defining features

Membership

Selecting and managing members is integral to fulfilling the assembly's goal. Some of the components are described below.

Selection

Quasi-random selection or sortition is often used to ensure that a representative spectrum of the population is included.[13] Elections by contrast overrepresent variously advantaged citizens.[14] Random selection is recommended on the grounds of equality, cost efficiency, and representativeness.[15] Selection is only quasi-random, due to the additional variables of self-selection and deliberate over-representation of specific groups.[16] When people are not required to participate, those who opt out may share characteristics that render the resulting group less than representative. To prevent this, quotas can be established to restore the balance.[16] Quota systems can be implemented in different ways; a straightforward "naive" implementation of quotas can result in a system that mistakenly "over-reacts" to individuals at the intersection of multiple overrepresented sets and over-excludes them from selection.[17] Regardless of the desired recruitment algorithm, recruitment can sometimes be sabotaged by faulty implementation.[18][19] Random selection in governance has historic significance and the earliest known instances include the Athenian democracy and various European communities.[10][14][15][20]

Term limits

Regular turnover of representatives is often a requisite: Participants serve for a limited time. This standard is can help to maintain viewpoint diversity in the long term and avoid sorting the assembly into in-groups and out-groups that bias the result. Absent term limits, the assembly may become homogenous or turn to private interest, losing sight of the common good.[10]

Size

The size of a citizens' assembly must be large enough to capture a representative cross-section of the population.[16] The size depends on the purpose, demographics, and population size of the community. Assemblies are typically relatively small for ease of management and to ensure active participation among all members.[10] Assemblies typically consist of between 50 and 200 citizens.[21] In Ireland, the 2012-14 Convention on the Constitution was composed of 66 citizens, 33 representatives chosen by political parties, and a chairperson;[22] Ireland's subsequent recurring Assembly recruited 99 citizens reflecting the country's demographic diversity, and appointed an expert chairperson.[23] The 2019-20 Citizens' Assembly of Scotland consists of 100 citizens.[24] The 2020 Citizens' Climate Assembly UK consists of 110 members.[25]

Functions

The function of a citizen's assembly has no a priori limits. Though assemblies have been historically limited to proposals concerning electoral reform, the purpose of an assembly can vary widely.

Proposal power versus decision-making power

Modern assemblies typically propose rather than enact. Assembly proposals in those systems are then enacted (or not) by the corresponding authority. Sometimes a proposal is sent to the general electorate as a referendum.

Procedure

Deliberation

 
A city council deliberating in 1636.

A key component of assemblies is their deliberative nature. Deliberation allows for the education of participants, who may be uninformed on the specific issue of interest. Assemblies typically provide access to experts, including politicians, analysts, scientists and other subject-matter experts. By incorporating the views, information and arguments of experts and then asking the participants to engage in collaborative discussion, assemblies aim to educate the participants, and produce a vote or result representative of the educated public interest. Deliberation allows for representation of the common person while attempting to mitigate misinformation, ignorance, and apathy.[citation needed] Initiatives such as deliberative polling attempt to utilize this benefit.

Parkinson argues that the intent of deliberation is to "replace power plays and political tantrums with 'the mild voice of reason'". Deliberation attempts to marry procedural effectiveness with substantive outcomes. Parkinson continues that the process reframes "political legitimacy" as involving "not just doing things right, but doing the right things".[26] This view contrasts with the purely procedural account of legitimacy, of which Rawls says "there is a correct or fair procedure such that the outcome is likewise correct or fair, whatever it is, provided the procedure has been followed properly."[27] While deliberation is itself a procedure, it deliberately incorporates factual information, and thus broadens the consideration of legitimacy.

Agenda-setting

Agenda-setting refers to establishing a plan for the substantive issues that the assembly is to consider. In major examples of assemblies, such as those in British Columbia and Ontario, the legislature set the agenda before the assemblies were convened. However, Dahl asserts that final control over agendas is an essential component of an ideal democracy: "the body of citizens...should have the exclusive control to determine what matters are or are not to be decided."[28] This problem remains unresolved, as both agendas imposed from outside or from a small internal body limit the participants' scope. While the petition process theoretically extends the agenda-setting process to all citizens, petition gathering mechanics may be burdensome. Fishkin writes "The equal opportunity is formal and symbolic, while effective final control is exercised by those who can finance the signature gatherers."[29]

Decision

At some point, the assembly must conclude its deliberations and offer conclusions and recommendations. This is typically done in a voting process. The use of secret ballots is intended to reduce the impact of peer pressure and to control social comparison.

Examples

Assemblies have been used more frequently, including in British Columbia (2004), Ontario (2006), Netherlands (2006), Republic of Ireland (2016), Poland (2016) and the United Kingdom (2019 onwards). The assemblies in Canada and the Netherlands dealt with the question of electoral reform. In each case, citizens were selected through a semi-random process that ensured geographic and demographic balance. Participation was voluntary. Invitations were sent out randomly to those on the electoral register. The final participants were selected from those who responded in a manner that ensured a proportional representation of people from different places and backgrounds.

Global Assembly

Main article: Global Assembly

The Global Assembly was organised in 2021 to coincide with the COP26 in Glasgow in October–November 2021. It is the first body that can make any claim to represent the democratic wishes of the global population as a whole.

Belgium

The G1000 is a donation-funded initiative launched in 2011 by David Van Reybrouck with an online survey to identify issues. More than 5,000 suggestions were put forward and ranked by thousands of citizens. After clustering, 25 themes were put forward for a second round of voting. Next, 700 of the 1000 participants come together for a day to deliberate in Brussels. They were split into groups of 10 and after a briefing by experts, the participants drew on proposals around the surviving themes. A smaller group of citizens, the G32, gathered regularly over the ensuing months to refine these proposals and transform them into concrete recommendations. These recommendations were to be put to the rest of the country in April 2012.[30][31]

Canada

In Canada a policy jury or citizen jury is a body of people convened to render a decision or advice on a matter of public policy. Citizens participating in a policy jury engage in a comprehensive learning and deliberation process before finalizing a conclusion or set of recommendations.

Citizens’ Assemblies on Electoral Reform convened in British Columbia in 2004[32] and Ontario in 2006.[33] They used policy juries to consider alternative electoral systems. Three of Ontario's Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) referred their Integrated Health Service Plans (IHSP) for 2010–2013 to policy juries for advice and refinement. LHINs referring their IHSPs to policy juries include the South East LHIN,[34] Central LHIN and Mississauga Halton LHIN.

British Columbia

Main article: Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (British Columbia)

160 people and one chair participated in the British Columbia assembly to discuss and issue guidance on electoral reform.

Selection

The selection process was quasi-random. One man and one woman were randomly selected from each of British Columbia's 79 electoral districts in addition to two aboriginal members and the chair.[35] These members were selected by a civic lottery that ensured gender balance and fair representation by age group and geography. First, 15,800 invitations were randomly mailed to British Columbians including 200 in each constituency, asking if they were willing to put their names into a draw for future candidacy. The names then went through two more selection rounds.

The resulting assembly was not very representative of the larger public. The members were dissatisfied with BC's current electoral system, while surveys of the public indicated it to be relatively satisfied.[36]

Lang noted two similarities across the assembly: an interest in learning, especially about the political process, and a commitment to process once it started. She wrote, "this is likely to have contributed to the excellent working dynamic within the Assembly".[37]

Emphasizing the importance of representativeness in the selection process, Pal wrote, "the requirement of an equal number of members from each electoral district resulted in Citizens' Assemblies that did not reflect the actual population and may have skewed the outcome toward proposals that prioritized geographic representation."[11] Therefore, the emphasis on geography limited the representativeness of the final assemblies.

Process

The assembly conducted a twelve-week "learning phase" involving expert presentations, group discussions and access to source materials. Work included a review of electoral systems in use around the world and their various effects on the political process. This was followed by a public consultation phase lasting from May to June. Assembly members held over 50 public hearings and received 1,603 written submissions.[35] The members deliberated over which electoral system to recommend, and then the assembly took three separate votes.[38]

Results

On December 10, the assembly's final report, titled "Making Every Vote Count: The Case for Electoral Reform in British Columbia" was presented to the British Columbia legislature by the assembly. In May 2005, the recommendations from the assembly were accepted by 57.7% of voters in a referendum and were supported by a majority in 77 of the 79 electoral districts. However, the referendum required 60% approval by 60% and majorities in 60% of the 79 districts in order to pass. Consequently, no change ensued. The recommendations were rejected by 60.9% of voters in a follow-up referendum.

Ontario

Main article: Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform (Ontario)

A total of 103 people took part in Ontario's assembly on electoral reform. The recommendations of the Ontario assembly were rejected in the ensuing referendum by 63% of voters, retaining the status quo.

Denmark

"consensus conference" redirects here. For other uses, see Consensus conference (disambiguation).

Consensus conferences originated in Denmark in the 1980s as one of the earliest attempts by policymakers to include the lay public's opinions in their decision-making through public engagement.[39] The purpose of consensus conferences is to “qualify people’s attitudes, inasmuch as they are given all the information they require until they are ready to assess a given technology" and the resulting product likely looks different from that of other types of assemblies due to the need to reach consensus.[40] Consensus conferences are generally deemed suitable for topics that are socially relevant and/or that require public support.

Participants are randomly selected from a group of citizens who are invited to apply.[40][41] Invitees are members of the lay public who have no specific knowledge of the issue.[40] The resulting panel attempts to be demographically representative.

Panel members participate in two preparatory weekends and are given material prepared by a communicator to gain a basic understanding of the topic.[40] The panel then participates in a 4-day conference. The panel participates in a Q&A session with experts, where they hear opposing views. Members then prepare a final document summarizing their views and recommendations. On the final day, the panel then discusses their final document with policy- and decision-makers.

France

Main article: Citizens convention for ecological transition

Ireland

Main articles: Citizens' Assembly (Ireland) and Constitutional Convention (Ireland)

After the Irish financial crisis beginning in 2008, an assembly was among various proposals for political reform. In the 2011 general election, party manifestos included assemblies or conventions, for electoral reform (Fine Gael[42]) or constitutional reform (Fianna Fáil,[43] Labour Party,[44] Sinn Féin,[45] and the Green Party[46]). The ensuing Fine Gael–Labour government's programme included a "Constitutional Convention" comprising a chairperson nominated by the Taoiseach, 33 legislators nominated by political parties, and 67 citizens selected to be demographically representative.[22] It met from 2012 to 2014, discussing six issues specified by the government and then two assembly-selected issues. It issued nine reports, recommending constitutional amendments and other changes to statute law and legislative practice.[47] The government's response was criticised as lukewarm: it implemented a few recommendations, rejected others, and referred more to committees and the civil service for review.[48][49][50]

The Fine Gael–independent minority government formed after the 2016 general election established an assembly in July 2016 "without participation by politicians, and with a mandate to look at a limited number of key issues over an extended time period."[51][23]

Netherlands

Held in 2006 and composed of 143 randomly-selected Dutch citizens, the Burgerforum Kiesstelsel was tasked with examining options for electoral reform. On December 14, 2006, the Burgerforum presented its final report to a minister of the outgoing People's Party (VVD). A response to the report was delivered in April 2008, when it was rejected by the government of the then ruling coalition.[52] In 2020, consultation was started on a bill to implement the group's electoral reforms.[53]

Poland

Beginning in July 2016 after the municipal response to flooding was deemed inadequate by many citizens, Gdańsk assemblies comprising approximately 60 randomly-selected residents made binding decisions to address problems.[54] Assembly meetings are calm and even described as enjoyable. Names from the city's voter rolls are selected randomly. The membership is then balanced according to factors such as education-level, age, sex and district. For example, the assembly has the same percentage of senior citizens as the city. The assembly meets for several days, hears testimony from experts, asks questions and deliberates in small groups before rendering its binding policy decision.[54]

United Kingdom

Main articles: UK Climate Assembly and Citizens' Assembly of Scotland

Since a 1994 publication by the Institute for Public Policy Research, citizens' assemblies have become more common in the UK.[citation needed]

In 2019 the British government announced the UK Climate Assembly,[55] with 108 citizens aiming to deliberate over how to reach net-zero emissions by 2050.[25] Meetings were delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic and took place over six weekends between January and May 2020, with a report published in September 2020.

In 2019 the government of Scotland announced the Citizens' Assembly of Scotland with 6 meetings consisting of 100 citizens taking place between October 2019 and April 2020[56] to address 3 questions:[57]

  • What kind of country are we seeking to build?
  • How best can we overcome the challenges Scotland and the world face in the 21st century, including those arising from Brexit?
  • What further work should be carried out to give us the information we need to make informed choices about the future of the country?

The global environmental movement Extinction Rebellion has called for assemblies on climate change to be used by governments to make decisions on climate and environmental justice. In the UK, Extinction Rebellion demands that "government must create and be led by the decisions of a assembly on climate and ecological justice."[58] The central aim of the Burning Pink political party is to replace the British government with assemblies.[59]

In a 2019 survey conducted of British citizens by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce, 57% of those surveyed thought that a citizens assembly would not be sufficiently democratic because it was not large enough.[60] Where support was highest for a citizens assembly on Brexit in this survey was Northern Ireland. According to the RSA, this is perhaps due to greater awareness of the process thanks to the use of assemblies in the Republic of Ireland.[60]

United States

California

California Speaks consisted of 3,500 people representing all segments of the population.

Oregon

A Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) is Oregon's version of an assembly. A panel deliberates on a ballot initiative or referendum to be decided in an upcoming election. The panelists are chosen through means such as random sampling and stratified sampling to be demographically representative.[61] The number of participants is around two dozen. They are often paid for their time and travel to that broaden the range of citizens who can participate.[62] To date, only the state of Oregon has enacted a permanent CIR.[63] Colorado, Arizona, and Massachusetts have conducted pilot tests of the CIR.[64][65][66]

Process

A trained moderator oversees the discussions. Over the course of a few days, panelists deliberate among themselves and question experts and advocates on all sides of the initiative. The panelists write a statement in a form that can be made available though means such as including it in the voter's pamphlet. This statement summarizes the best arguments pro and con, and lists the number of panelists who recommended voting both for and against the initiative.[63]

Purposes

A CIR tries to strengthen the quality and impact of the public voice in elections and government decisions.[67] It addresses specific concerns about initiative campaigns where voters often receive little information, or else what they hear—for example, from paid advertisements—is biased.[68] Under a CIR, voters learn what a representative body of citizens thought about the initiative after careful study and deliberation.

Evaluation

Academic research reported that CIR panelists achieved high-quality deliberation.[69] Voters became aware of those deliberations through voters’ pamphlets and found the statement to be helpful to their decisions, and voter knowledge about the initiatives increased.[70] The panelists themselves developed new attitudes about the political process and their own capabilities.[71]

Washington (State)

The Washington Climate Assembly was the first state-wide climate assembly in America.[72] The Assembly took place in 2021, gathering 77 randomly selected citizens to discuss climate change.[73][74] The assembly was entirely virtual, and addressed the question: "How can Washington State equitably design and implement climate mitigation strategies while strengthening communities disproportionately impacted by climate change across the State?” [74] Their recommendations were brought for consideration to the State Legislature.

Selection

The organizers sought citizen input at all levels. In November 2020, they held a scoping meeting to determine what the Assembly's focus should be, and various concerns were consolidated into three possible questions.[74] The organizers then brought these questions to "elected officials, policy experts, tribal leaders and staff, environmental non-profits, businesses, community-based organizations, climate experts, deliberative democracy experts, and leaders of color," and their feedback created the final question. The scoping process involved self-selected participants.[74]

For the assembly, citizens were selected through stratified random sampling: 6,333 potential participants were initially contacted via phone.[75] Researchers created 10,000 possible groups of citizens, each of which accounted for participants' gender, age, congressional district, class, race, education and beliefs on climate change. They then randomly picked one possible group.[75] Organizers "attempted to break down barriers" to participation by providing technology (i.e. laptops and microphones) as well as childcare.[74][76] Each participant was also paid $500.[74]

Organization

In the first two months of 2021, Assembly members attended seven public "Learning Sessions" engaging both experts and affected parties. The first and last sessions were general overviews, while other sessions went into greater detail around one topic, such as the economic costs relating to climate change's effects and potential solutions. Five deliberative sessions allowed participants to determine “priority principles” and craft recommendations.[74][77] The public was then allowed to comment on the Assembly's recommendations. After public comment, the Assembly members voted on their recommendations through private votes.

The Assembly organizers emphasized their commitment to equity, stating that the Assembly had a “dual focus on climate change and equity.” The facilitator teams were designed to be diverse. They were rated as neutral by most participants – at the start of the Assembly, 80% of the assembly members said the facilitators were neutral, and this reached 90% over the course of the deliberations.[76]

Political Support

The Assembly submitted its recommendations to the state legislature, which had no obligation beyond consideration. However, Democrat state representatives Fey, Fitzgibbon, Hudgins, Kirby, and Ryu expressed their support for the assembly in a Herald Net op-ed, pointing to the examples of climate assemblies in the UK and France. They wrote that the assembly was an opportunity to "help us all to bring more voices to the table to understand deeply held concerns, concerns about the status quo as well as concerns about the policies proposed to fight climate change."[78] Support came from Republican representatives as well.[77]

Opportunities

Assembly proponents claim that they accomplish two of the three general requirements for direct democracy (mass representation, deliberation, and equity). It permits open and public deliberation, albeit among a small yet representative body of citizens; and it permits ratification/endorsement by the whole electorate. Democratic values and superior results are potential advantages of such institutions.

Common interest

Electoral reform, redistricting, campaign finance law, and the regulation of political speech are often claimed to be unsuitable for management by self-interested politicians.[15] Assemblies have repeatedly been deployed to replace such political judgments.[13][14] Fearon[79] and separately Nino[80] support the idea that deliberative democratic models tend to generate conditions of impartiality, rationality and knowledge, increasing the likelihood that the decisions reached are morally correct.

Several experts assert that selection by sortition prevents disproportionate influence by "special interests".[13][14] Term limits further reduce the opportunities for special interests to influence assemblies.[20]

Deliberation

Deliberative democracy aims to harness the benefits of deliberation to produce better understanding and resolution of important issues.[81][82] Assemblies are intended to stimulate deliberation, in which the participants can less easily be captured by special interest.[20][39] Deliberative polling advocate Fishkin claimed that deliberation promotes better problem-solving by educating and actively engaging participants.[83][84][85] Deliberation is claimed to lessen faction by emphasizing resolution over partisanship.[13][83] Additionally, citizens who were not selected tend to perceive those chosen as both technical experts and as "ordinary" citizens like themselves. As happened in British Columbia, these features encouraged voter comfort with the actions of the assembly.[86]

Representative and inclusive

Random lotteries have been explored as election alternatives on grounds that it allows for more accurate representation and inclusivity.[20] A truly randomly selected group can embody the "median voter". Participants are supposed to represent the common person.[14] Selection by lot corrects the elitist aspect of elections. Successful political candidates typically require access to education, money and connections. Though elected legislators generally have more experience, they are likely to focus on their supporters rather than the larger population. Representative democracies have been criticized as not representative at all.[10] The lack of female and minority representation in the US Congress is often cited as an example. While others lament the importance of branding in electing candidates (with recognizable last names, for example, fueling political dynasties).[87]

Money is argued to have an outsized role in election outcomes. Lessig argued that elections are dominated by money. When random selection is used alongside statistical analysis, accurate representation can be attained.[13] Overlaying quotas on the initial random selection corrects for disproportionate ability/willingness across various groups, improving representativeness.[15]

Cognitive diversity

Assemblies allow for increased cognitive diversity, understood as a diversity of problem-solving methods or ways of interpreting the world. Quasi-random selection does not filter out cognitive diversity as elections are alleged to do.[88] Similarly, the process does not attempt to select the best-performing or most skilled agents.[13][88]

Some studies report that cognitively diverse groups produce better results than homogenous groups. Lu and Page claim that cognitive diversity is valuable for effective problem solving. They selected two problem-solving teams from a diverse population of intelligent agents: the randomly selected team outperformed the "best-performing" agents.[14][88] Unique perspectives and interpretations generally enhance analysis.[88][89] These results imply that it may be more important to maximize cognitive diversity over individual competence. Landemore argued that random selection results in increased efficacy, diversity and inclusivity.[88] In fact, Mill famously argued that governing assemblies should be a "fair sample of every grade of intellect among the people" over "a selection of the greatest political minds."[90]

Time and cost-effective

Instead of asking all citizens to deliberate deeply on every issue at more frequent (and costly) elections, assemblies/juries can retain the representativeness that is the advantage of voting, but at a much reduced cost to the government and its citizens. The greatest potential for cost-savings, however, come from the quicker resolution of tough issues and the reduction in wasted spending by rooting out corruption and other inefficiencies associated with a less representative power structure.

Concerns Expressed

Legitimacy

Representativeness

Assemblies require participants to gather at a single place (or virtually) to discuss the targeted issue(s).[83][needs update] Inevitably, not every selected individual has the time and interest to join those events. Those who attend are significantly different from those who do not.[91][needs update]

In real-world settings, attendance can be low.[39] In the case of Fishkin's "Europe in one room project", data supports the concern: only 300 out of 869 respondents participated in deliberative meetings.[92][needs update] Those who attended and those who did not differed significantly.[93] Some groups are significantly more likely to attend public meetings than others.[94][needs update] In general, those who participate tend to be motivated and opinionated.[39] This is problematic because participant group dynamics and personalities can play an important role in producing different outcomes of discussions.[93][95][needs update]

Also, processes that require consensus might result in policy outcomes that don't represent the views of most people.[39]

Participation

Compared to elections, assemblies lack mass representation, as the assembly involves a tiny minority of the public. When people vote, they interact with the government and with the law. Elections and voting are an important element of sovereignty, even if the vote makes little difference. Eliminating elections undermines the consultation process that allows everyone to feel like an involved citizen in a representative democracy.

Lafont, for example, argues that assemblies undermine deliberation. She argues that this is because assemblies asking the public to accept the results of their deliberation is akin to an elite democracy. While she clarifies that "this variety differs from the standard elite model to the extent that it does not ask citizens to blindly defer to the deliberations of a consolidated political elite.... [it] blindly defer to the deliberations of a few selected citizens."[96] Fishkin argues in turn that this model is not elite because it uses ordinary citizens who are representative of the population. Lafont rejects this characterization, arguing that people are "subjected to a filter of deliberative experience" which makes them "no longer a representative sample of the citizenry at large."[96]

Landemore responds to Lafont by arguing that while her concerns are valid, large-scale discourse is simply impossible, never mind superior.[97] Landemore recommends making assemblies "as 'open' to the larger public as possible."[97] For example, their decisions could be validated via a referendum.

Fishkin notes a trilemma among the ideas of political equality, deliberation, and participation.[85] In a body such as an assembly, political equality is achieved through a random and ideally representative selection process, while deliberation is achieved in the actions of the assembly. However, since the body is made up of a subset of the population, it does not achieve the goal of participation on a broad scale.

Fishkin attempts to solve the trilemma so posed by considering an entire deliberative society, which would constitute a deliberative macrocosm. He sees assemblies as experiments on how to realize macro-scale deliberation later on.[85]

Threatening to incumbent power structures

Warren and Gastil claim, in the British Columbia case, that other citizens should have been able to "treat it as a facilitative trustee (a trusted information and decision proxy)."[98] Participants essentially became informal experts, allowing them to act as an extension of the larger public.

The introduction of the assembly, according to John Parkinson, undermined the trust and power that British Columbia political parties and advocacy groups had gained. It could also "undermine the epistemic, ethical, and democratic functions of the whole".[26]

Briefing materials/expert objectivity

Briefing materials must be balanced, diverse and accurate. This presents the same problem that assemblies address: how to ensure balanced representation. One approach is to convene an advisory committee, which in turn faces the same issue.[99][100]

Accountability

Assemblies (depending on their design) might not provide enough accountability to prevent members from engaging in inappropriate behavior.[101]

Outspoken citizens

Conversational dynamics are important to successful assemblies. However, more outspoken citizens tend to dominate the conversation. This can potentially be minimized by an effective facilitator.

The reliance on conversation and the ultimate need to reach a conclusion, can mask differences in opinion, particularly among the less outspoken.[102][needs update]

Group polarization

The possibility of group polarization is another concern. Cass Sunstein argued in 1999 that "deliberation tends to move groups, and the individuals who compose them, toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments."[103][needs update] Consensus conferences also have the potential to make individuals tend to the extreme in their opinions, i.e. citizens essentially rally around their own views in the presence of opposing views.[39]

However, Fishkin responded that this depends on how the assembly is structured. Resources such as briefing materials and expert testimony are meant to ameliorate extreme views by supplying information and correcting misinformation/misunderstanding.[85]

Competence of average person (esp. intelligence, leadership)

Gil Delannoi and Oliver Dowlen argue that the "average citizen" is unequipped to lead, given their average intelligence and competence.[14]

However, a study comparing the debate quality of an Irish Citizen's Assembly and an Irish parliamentary committee found that citizens showed a deeper cognitive grasp of the subject matter at stake (abortion).[104]

See also

References

  1. ^ Crosby, Ned; Hottinger, John C. (2011). "The Citizens Jury Process". The Book of the States: 321–325. Retrieved 11 October 2020.
  2. ^ Dryzek, John S.; Bächtiger, André; Milewicz, Karolina (2011). "Toward a Deliberative Global Citizens' Assembly". Global Policy. 2 (1): 33–42. doi:10.1111/j.1758-5899.2010.00052.x. ISSN 1758-5880.
  3. ^ Warren, Mark E.; Pearse, Hilary (2008). "Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens' Assembly". Cambridge University Press. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  4. ^ Robin Clarke; Ruth Rennie; Clare Delap; Vicki Coombe (30 November 2000). "People's Juries in Social Inclusion Partnerships: A Pilot Project". The Scottish Government. Development Department Research Programme. Retrieved 28 December 2011.
  5. ^ PLA Notes 40: Deliberative Democracy and Citizen Empowerment. IIED. 2001. ISBN 978-1-84369-284-3.
  6. ^ Česnulaitytė, Ieva (23 July 2020). "Models of representative deliberative processes". Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions. doi:10.1787/36f3f279-en. ISBN 9789264837621. S2CID 226688526.
  7. ^ Crosby, Ned; Kelly, Janet M.; Schaefer, Paul (1986). "Citizens Panels: A New Approach to Citizen Participation". Public Administration Review. 46 (2): 170–178. doi:10.2307/976169. ISSN 0033-3352. JSTOR 976169.
  8. ^ "Consensus Conference". involve.org.uk. 27 June 2018. Retrieved 27 November 2020.
  9. ^ Pimbert, Michel; Wakeford, Tom (October 2003). "Prajateerpu, Power and Knowledge: The Politics of Participatory Action Research in Development Part 1. Context, Process and Safeguards". Action Research. 1 (2): 184–207. doi:10.1177/14767503030012004. S2CID 144374547.
  10. ^ a b c d e Manin, Bernard (1997). The principles of representative government. Cambridge University Press.
  11. ^ a b Pal, Michael (2012). (PDF). Queen's University at Kingston. 38: 259–294. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2021-03-28. Retrieved 2019-03-26.
  12. ^ Floridia, Antonio (2018-09-06). Bächtiger, Andre; Dryzek, John S; Mansbridge, Jane; Warren, Mark (eds.). "The Origins of the Deliberative Turn". The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy: 34–54. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198747369.013.25. ISBN 9780198747369.
  13. ^ a b c d e f Stone, Peter (2011). Lotteries in Public Life. Imprint Academics. ISBN 978-1845402082.
  14. ^ a b c d e f g Delannoi, Gil and Oliver Dowlen (2010). Sortition: Theory and Practice. Imprint Academic. ISBN 978-1845401993.
  15. ^ a b c d Dowlen, Oliver (2009). The Political Potential of Sortition: A study of the random selection of citizens for public office. Imprint Academic. ISBN 978-1845401795.
  16. ^ a b c Warren and Pearse (2008). Designing Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press. p. 10.
  17. ^ Flanigan, Bailey; Gölz, Paul; Gupta, Anupam; Hennig, Brett; Procaccia, Ariel D. (26 August 2021). "Fair algorithms for selecting citizens' assemblies". Nature. 596 (7873): 548–552. doi:10.1038/s41586-021-03788-6. PMC 8387237. PMID 34349266.
  18. ^ "The myth of the citizens' assembly". POLITICO. 18 June 2019. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
  19. ^ "Seven Citizens' Assembly members not randomly recruited". The Irish Times. 2018. Retrieved 22 September 2022.
  20. ^ a b c d Barnett, Anthony and Peter Carty (2008). The Athenian Option: Radical Reform for the House of Lords.
  21. ^ "What Are Citizens' Assemblies?". www.electoral-reform.org.uk. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  22. ^ a b . Ireland: Constitutional Convention. Archived from the original on 18 January 2018. Retrieved 1 June 2016.
  23. ^ a b Power, Elaine (27 July 2016). "Judge Mary Laffoy to chair Citizens' Assembly on the 8th Amendment". Retrieved 27 July 2016.
  24. ^ "Assembly Members | Citizens Assembly". www.citizensassembly.scot. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  25. ^ a b "Climate Assembly UK - Climate Assembly UK". www.climateassembly.uk. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  26. ^ a b Deliberative systems : deliberative democracy at the large scale. Parkinson, John. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 2012. ISBN 9781107025394. OCLC 802706974.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: others (link)
  27. ^ Rawls, John (2005). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674017722. OCLC 474723683.
  28. ^ Dahl, Robert A. (1982). Dilemmas of pluralist democracy : autonomy vs. control. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0585348790. OCLC 47010959.
  29. ^ Fishkin, James; Kousser, Thad; Luskin, Robert C.; Siu, Alice (December 2015). "Deliberative Agenda Setting: Piloting Reform of Direct Democracy in California". Perspectives on Politics. 13 (4): 1030–1042. doi:10.1017/S1537592715002297. ISSN 1537-5927. S2CID 36826069.
  30. ^ "G100". Retrieved 2 January 2012.
  31. ^ "Et si on avait essayé le G1000?". Le Soir. 29 November 2011. Retrieved 2 January 2012.[permanent dead link]
  32. ^ Archived from the original on 2005-09-24. Retrieved 2005-10-09.
  33. ^ "Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform". www.citizensassembly.gov.on.ca.
  34. ^ "South East Local Health Integration Network (LHIN)". www.southeastlhin.on.ca.
  35. ^ a b Elections BC (May 17, 2005). Report of the Chief Election Officer: 38th Provincial Election/2005 Referendum on Electoral Reform (PDF). p. 34.
  36. ^ Blais, André; Kenneth Carty; Patrick Fournier (2005) http://www.crcee.umontreal.ca/pdf/Citizens%20Choice.08052.pdf
  37. ^ Lang, Amy (March 1, 2007). "But Is It for Real? The British Columbia Citizens' Assembly as a Model of State-Sponsored Citizen Empowerment". Politics & Society. 35: 35–70. doi:10.1177/0032329206297147. S2CID 1852236.
  38. ^ Citizen's Assembly on Electoral Reform of British Columbia, Final Report (December 2004). Making Every Vote Count: The Case for Electoral Reform in British Columbia (PDF). p. 10.
  39. ^ a b c d e f Scheufele, D. A. (2010). "Modern citizenship or policy dead end? Evaluating the need for public participation in science policy making, and why public meetings may not be the answer" (PDF). Retrieved 19 Oct 2017.
  40. ^ a b c d Danish Board of Technology (2006). . Archived from the original on 16 August 2011. Retrieved 13 November 2011.
  41. ^ Einsiedel, Edna F.; Jelsøe, Erling; Breck, Thomas (1 January 2001). "Publics at the technology table: The consensus conference in Denmark, Canada, and Australia". Public Understanding of Science. 10 (1): 83–98. doi:10.3109/a036857 (inactive 31 December 2022). ISSN 0963-6625.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of December 2022 (link)
  42. ^ (PDF). RTÉ. 2011. p. 7. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
  43. ^ (PDF). RTÉ. 2011. p. 31. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
  44. ^ "Labour's Manifesto 2011" (PDF). RTÉ. 2011. p. 46. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
  45. ^ (PDF). RTÉ. p. 33. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 February 2011. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
  46. ^ (PDF). RTÉ. p. 13. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
  47. ^ Arnold, Tom (1 April 2014). "Inside the Convention on the Constitution". The Irish Times. Retrieved 1 April 2014.
  48. ^ O'Toole, Fintan (3 March 2015). "How hopes raised by the Constitutional Convention were dashed". The Irish Times. Retrieved 20 March 2015.
  49. ^ Farrell, David (17 March 2015). "Constitutional Convention 'brand' is in jeopardy". The Irish Times. Retrieved 20 March 2015.
  50. ^ McGee, Harry (26 January 2015). "Only two proposals for Constitution referendum". The Irish Times. Retrieved 28 January 2015.
  51. ^ "A Programme for a Partnership Government" (PDF). Government of Ireland. 11 May 2016. p. 153. Retrieved 1 June 2016.
  52. ^ Patrick Fournier et al., "When Citizens Decide: Lessons from Citizen Assemblies on Electoral Reform"
  53. ^ "Consultatie Wetsvoorstel Burgerforum kiesstelsel". Dutch government. 15 December 2020. Retrieved 18 December 2020.
  54. ^ a b Resilience, 22 Nov. 2017, post by Tin Gazivoda, "Solutions: How the Poles Are Making Democracy Work Again in Gdansk," https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-11-22/solutions-how-the-poles-are-making-democracy-work-again-in-gdansk/
  55. ^ "Parliament sends 30,000 invitations for citizens' assembly on climate change - News from Parliament". UK Parliament. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  56. ^ "Weekend Content | Citizens Assembly". www.citizensassembly.scot. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  57. ^ "Welcome to the Citizens' Assembly of Scotland | Citizens Assembly". www.citizensassembly.scot. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  58. ^ "Citizens' Assembly". Extinction Rebellion. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  59. ^ Taylor, Diane (25 June 2020). "Extinction Rebellion activists launch UK Beyond Politics party by stealing food". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 December 2020.
  60. ^ a b RSA. "New survey highlights the pros and cons of a citizens' assembly on Brexit - RSA". www.thersa.org. Retrieved 2019-03-20.
  61. ^ Gastil, John; Richards, Robert; Knobloch, Katherine (2 January 2014). "Vicarious Deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review Influenced Deliberation in Mass Elections". International Journal of Communication. 8: 28. ISSN 1932-8036.
  62. ^ "Citizens' Initiative Review | Government Innovators Network". www.innovations.harvard.edu.
  63. ^ a b Robert Richards, “Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review” http://participedia.net/en/methods/citizens-initiative-review 2017-04-25 at the Wayback Machine
  64. ^ "Massachusetts Citizens' Initiative Review pilot project". Massachusetts Citizens' Initiative Review pilot project.
  65. ^ . Archived from the original on 2015-01-03. Retrieved 2017-07-21.
  66. ^ https://sites.psu.edu/citizensinitiativereview/files/2015/01/CIR-2016-Arizona-Report-26npu2z.pdf[bare URL PDF]
  67. ^ "Evaluating a New Governing Institution: An Assessment of the Citizens' Initiative Review". National Communication Association. July 19, 2016.
  68. ^ John Gastil, “Beyond Endorsements and Partisan Cues: Given Voters Viable Alternaties to Unreliable Cognitive Shortcuts” http://sites.psu.edu/citizensinitiativereview/wp-content/uploads/sites/23162/2015/01/Gastil-2014-Beyond-Endorsements-and-Partisan-Cues-Giving-Vote.pdf
  69. ^ Katherine R. Knobloch, John Gastil, Justin Reedy, and Katherine Cramer Walsh, “Did They Deliberate? Applying an Evaluative Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review” http://sites.psu.edu/citizensinitiativereview/wp-content/uploads/sites/23162/2015/01/DidTheyDeliberate.pdf
  70. ^ Katherine R. Knobloch, John Gastil, Traci Feller, and Robert C. Richards, “Empowering Citizen Deliberation in Direct Democratic Elections: A Field Study of the 2012 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review” http://factsreports.revues.org/3448
  71. ^ Katherine R. Knobloch and John Gastil, “Civic (Re)socialisation: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation” http://sites.psu.edu/citizensinitiativereview/wp-content/uploads/sites/23162/2015/01/Civic-resocialization.pdf
  72. ^ Landi, Bonface (January 22, 2021). ""Washington is the first U.S. state to hold a climate assembly"". Inhabitat.
  73. ^ "Washington Climate Assembly".
  74. ^ a b c d e f g ""WASHINGTON CLIMATE ASSEMBLY FINAL REPORT"" (PDF). March 19, 2021.
  75. ^ a b "Washington Climate Assembly: Sortition Methodology".
  76. ^ a b "Climate Assembly Legislative Meet and Greet". YouTube. March 19, 2021.
  77. ^ a b Godwin, Mandy (January 19, 2021). "Washington hosts first climate assembly in the United States". Crosscut.
  78. ^ "Citizens assembly would seek consensus on climate". The Everett Herald. May 31, 2020.
  79. ^ Elster, Jon (1998). Chapter 2 (essay by Fearon). {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
  80. ^ Nino, Carlos (1996). {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  81. ^ Fishkin, James (2009). When the People Speak. Oxford UP.
  82. ^ Fishkin, James S. "Deliberative Polling: Executive Summary". CDD. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
  83. ^ a b c Fishkin, J.S.; Luskin, R.C.; Jowell, R. (2000). "Deliberative polling and public consultation". Parliamentary Affairs. 53 (4): 657–666. doi:10.1093/pa/53.4.657.
  84. ^ "Deliberative Polling: Toward a Better-Informed Democracy" Stanford University, Center for Deliberative Democracy
  85. ^ a b c d S., Fishkin, James (2018). Democracy when the people are thinking : revitalizing our politics through public deliberation (1st ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom. ISBN 9780198820291. OCLC 1006802546.
  86. ^ Ferejohn, John; "The Citizen's Assembly Model", in M.E. Warren et H. Pearse, (eds.), Designing Deliberative Democracy, The British Columbia Citizens Assembly, p. 199-200
  87. ^ Against Elections David Van Reybrouck. 2016. p. 29.
  88. ^ a b c d e Landemore, Hélène (May 2013). "Deliberation, cognitive diversity, and democratic inclusiveness: an epistemic argument for the random selection of representatives". Synthese. 190 (7): 1209–1231. doi:10.1007/s11229-012-0062-6. S2CID 21572876.
  89. ^ Hong, Lu; Page, Scott E. (2004-11-16). "Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 101 (46): 16385–16389. Bibcode:2004PNAS..10116385H. doi:10.1073/pnas.0403723101. ISSN 0027-8424. PMC 528939. PMID 15534225.
  90. ^ Mills, John Stuart (1875). Considerations on Representative Government. Henry Holt and Company.
  91. ^ Fishkin, J. S. (1996). "Bringing deliberation to democracy". Public Perspective. 7: 1–14.
  92. ^ Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The voice of the people. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  93. ^ a b Merkle, D. M. (1996). "The polls - Review - The National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll". Public Opinion Quarterly. 60 (4): 588–619. doi:10.1086/297775.
  94. ^ McLeod, J. M. D.; Scheufele, D. A.; Moy, P. (1999). "Community, communication, and participation: The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation". Political Communication. 16 (3): 315–336. doi:10.1080/105846099198659.
  95. ^ Admir, J. G. (1996). "The Hawthorne effect is a common artifact in social research". Public Perspective. 7: 14–16.
  96. ^ a b Lafont, Christina (2015). "Deliberation, Participation, and Democratic Legitimacy: Should Deliberative Mini-publics Shape Public Policy?*". The Journal of Political Philosophy. 23: 40–63. doi:10.1111/jopp.12031.
  97. ^ a b Landemore, Hélène (2020). Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press. pp. 115–116.
  98. ^ Warren, Mark E.; Gastil, John (April 2015). "Can Deliberative Minipublics Address the Cognitive Challenges of Democratic Citizenship?". The Journal of Politics. 77 (2): 562–574. doi:10.1086/680078. ISSN 0022-3816. S2CID 155508734.
  99. ^ Siu, Alice. . CIVICUS. Archived from the original on 30 June 2010. Retrieved 12 November 2012.
  100. ^ Fishkin, James (1 December 2013). "Deliberation by the People Themselves: Entry Points for the Public Voice" (PDF). Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy. 12 (4): 490–507. doi:10.1089/elj.2013.0200. Retrieved 3 December 2020.
  101. ^ Mark Warren, "Citizen Representative" in M. E. Warren et H. Pearse, (eds), Designing Deliberative Democracy, The British Columbia Citizens' Assembly, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009, pp. 50-69 (p. 59.)
  102. ^ Fishkin, J. S.; Luskin, R. S.; Jowell, R. (2000). "Deliberative polling and public consultation" (PDF). Parliamentary Affairs. 53 (4): 657–666. doi:10.1093/pa/53.4.657. Retrieved 3 December 2020.[dead link]
  103. ^ Sunstein, Cass R. (1999). "The Law of Group Polarization". SSRN Working Paper Series. doi:10.2139/ssrn.199668. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 145439741.
  104. ^ Suiter, Jane; M Farrell, David; Harris, Clodagh; Murphy, Philip (2021-07-23). "Measuring Epistemic Deliberation on Polarized Issues: The Case of Abortion Provision in Ireland". Political Studies Review. 20 (4): 630–647. doi:10.1177/14789299211020909. ISSN 1478-9299. S2CID 237729615.

External links

  • Examples of citizens' juries on the governance of food and agricultural research in West Africa, South Asia and Andean Altiplano
  • Open access analysis of citizens' juries (2002)
  • BBC Today Programme Citizens' Jury
  • Peter Dienel's Planungszelle
  • Glasgow People's Jury: A Blueprint For Local Decision-Making
  • The locals know what they need
  • An academic review of citizen's juries, published in the journal Social Research Update
  • Ontario Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform
  • Local Health Integration Network
  • The Danish consensus conference model
  • Consensus Conference Manual

February 18, 2023
citizens, assembly, confused, with, popular, assembly, other, uses, disambiguation, policy, jury, redirects, here, governing, body, parish, police, jury, citizens, assembly, also, known, citizens, jury, citizens, panel, people, jury, policy, jury, citizens, in. Not to be confused with Popular assembly For other uses see Citizens assembly disambiguation policy jury redirects here For the governing body of a parish in US see Police jury A citizens assembly also known as citizens jury or citizens panel or people s jury or policy jury or citizens initiative review or consensus conference or citizens convention is a randomly selected group of people who deliberate on important public questions 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Extinction Rebellion Solidarity with the French Citizens Assembly on Climate It is a mechanism of participatory action research PAR that draws on the symbolism and some of the practices of a trial by jury 9 The purpose is to recruit a cross section of the public to study the selected issues Information is presented to provide a common set of facts available options are considered and recommendations are forwarded to the appropriate authority Some states implement only those recommendations approved in a subsequent referendum Assemblies aim to increase public trust in the convening government 10 by remedying the divergence of interests that arises between elected representatives and the electorate as well as a lack in deliberation in legislatures 11 The use of assemblies is related to the traditions of deliberative democracy and popular sovereignty in political theory While earliest confirmed example took place in Athenian democracy they have become newly relevant both to theorists and politicians as part of a deliberative turn in democratic theory This turn began in the 1980s shifting from the predominant theoretical framework of participatory democracy toward deliberative democracy initially in the work of Jane Mansbridge and Joseph M Bessette 12 Assemblies have been used in countries such as Canada and the Netherlands to deliberate for example on the system used to elect politicians Ordinarily assemblies are state initiatives However independent assemblies such as the Le G1000 in Belgium or the We The Citizens project in Ireland have convened The People s Parliament was a UK forum of randomly selected citizens presented as a television program Citizen s Assemblies have now been convened on a global level Assemblies have been proposed as a potential solution to dealing with divisive and highly politicised issues such as same sex marriage abortion Brexit and decarbonisation Contents 1 Defining features 1 1 Membership 1 1 1 Selection 1 1 2 Term limits 1 1 3 Size 1 2 Functions 1 2 1 Proposal power versus decision making power 1 3 Procedure 1 3 1 Deliberation 1 3 2 Agenda setting 1 4 Decision 2 Examples 2 1 Global Assembly 2 2 Belgium 2 3 Canada 2 3 1 British Columbia 2 3 1 1 Selection 2 3 1 2 Process 2 3 1 3 Results 2 3 2 Ontario 2 4 Denmark 2 5 France 2 6 Ireland 2 7 Netherlands 2 8 Poland 2 9 United Kingdom 2 10 United States 2 10 1 California 2 10 2 Oregon 2 10 2 1 Process 2 10 2 2 Purposes 2 10 2 3 Evaluation 2 10 3 Washington State 2 10 3 1 Selection 2 10 3 2 Organization 2 10 4 Political Support 3 Opportunities 3 1 Common interest 3 2 Deliberation 3 3 Representative and inclusive 3 3 1 Cognitive diversity 3 4 Time and cost effective 4 Concerns Expressed 4 1 Legitimacy 4 1 1 Representativeness 4 1 2 Participation 4 1 3 Threatening to incumbent power structures 4 1 4 Briefing materials expert objectivity 4 2 Accountability 4 3 Outspoken citizens 4 4 Group polarization 4 5 Competence of average person esp intelligence leadership 5 See also 6 References 7 External linksDefining features EditMembership Edit Selecting and managing members is integral to fulfilling the assembly s goal Some of the components are described below Selection Edit Quasi random selection or sortition is often used to ensure that a representative spectrum of the population is included 13 Elections by contrast overrepresent variously advantaged citizens 14 Random selection is recommended on the grounds of equality cost efficiency and representativeness 15 Selection is only quasi random due to the additional variables of self selection and deliberate over representation of specific groups 16 When people are not required to participate those who opt out may share characteristics that render the resulting group less than representative To prevent this quotas can be established to restore the balance 16 Quota systems can be implemented in different ways a straightforward naive implementation of quotas can result in a system that mistakenly over reacts to individuals at the intersection of multiple overrepresented sets and over excludes them from selection 17 Regardless of the desired recruitment algorithm recruitment can sometimes be sabotaged by faulty implementation 18 19 Random selection in governance has historic significance and the earliest known instances include the Athenian democracy and various European communities 10 14 15 20 Term limits Edit Regular turnover of representatives is often a requisite Participants serve for a limited time This standard is can help to maintain viewpoint diversity in the long term and avoid sorting the assembly into in groups and out groups that bias the result Absent term limits the assembly may become homogenous or turn to private interest losing sight of the common good 10 Size Edit The size of a citizens assembly must be large enough to capture a representative cross section of the population 16 The size depends on the purpose demographics and population size of the community Assemblies are typically relatively small for ease of management and to ensure active participation among all members 10 Assemblies typically consist of between 50 and 200 citizens 21 In Ireland the 2012 14 Convention on the Constitution was composed of 66 citizens 33 representatives chosen by political parties and a chairperson 22 Ireland s subsequent recurring Assembly recruited 99 citizens reflecting the country s demographic diversity and appointed an expert chairperson 23 The 2019 20 Citizens Assembly of Scotland consists of 100 citizens 24 The 2020 Citizens Climate Assembly UK consists of 110 members 25 Functions Edit The function of a citizen s assembly has no a priori limits Though assemblies have been historically limited to proposals concerning electoral reform the purpose of an assembly can vary widely Proposal power versus decision making power Edit Modern assemblies typically propose rather than enact Assembly proposals in those systems are then enacted or not by the corresponding authority Sometimes a proposal is sent to the general electorate as a referendum Procedure Edit Deliberation Edit A city council deliberating in 1636 A key component of assemblies is their deliberative nature Deliberation allows for the education of participants who may be uninformed on the specific issue of interest Assemblies typically provide access to experts including politicians analysts scientists and other subject matter experts By incorporating the views information and arguments of experts and then asking the participants to engage in collaborative discussion assemblies aim to educate the participants and produce a vote or result representative of the educated public interest Deliberation allows for representation of the common person while attempting to mitigate misinformation ignorance and apathy citation needed Initiatives such as deliberative polling attempt to utilize this benefit Parkinson argues that the intent of deliberation is to replace power plays and political tantrums with the mild voice of reason Deliberation attempts to marry procedural effectiveness with substantive outcomes Parkinson continues that the process reframes political legitimacy as involving not just doing things right but doing the right things 26 This view contrasts with the purely procedural account of legitimacy of which Rawls says there is a correct or fair procedure such that the outcome is likewise correct or fair whatever it is provided the procedure has been followed properly 27 While deliberation is itself a procedure it deliberately incorporates factual information and thus broadens the consideration of legitimacy Agenda setting Edit Agenda setting refers to establishing a plan for the substantive issues that the assembly is to consider In major examples of assemblies such as those in British Columbia and Ontario the legislature set the agenda before the assemblies were convened However Dahl asserts that final control over agendas is an essential component of an ideal democracy the body of citizens should have the exclusive control to determine what matters are or are not to be decided 28 This problem remains unresolved as both agendas imposed from outside or from a small internal body limit the participants scope While the petition process theoretically extends the agenda setting process to all citizens petition gathering mechanics may be burdensome Fishkin writes The equal opportunity is formal and symbolic while effective final control is exercised by those who can finance the signature gatherers 29 Decision Edit At some point the assembly must conclude its deliberations and offer conclusions and recommendations This is typically done in a voting process The use of secret ballots is intended to reduce the impact of peer pressure and to control social comparison Examples EditAssemblies have been used more frequently including in British Columbia 2004 Ontario 2006 Netherlands 2006 Republic of Ireland 2016 Poland 2016 and the United Kingdom 2019 onwards The assemblies in Canada and the Netherlands dealt with the question of electoral reform In each case citizens were selected through a semi random process that ensured geographic and demographic balance Participation was voluntary Invitations were sent out randomly to those on the electoral register The final participants were selected from those who responded in a manner that ensured a proportional representation of people from different places and backgrounds Global Assembly Edit Main article Global Assembly The Global Assembly was organised in 2021 to coincide with the COP26 in Glasgow in October November 2021 It is the first body that can make any claim to represent the democratic wishes of the global population as a whole Belgium Edit This section needs to be updated Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information May 2021 The G1000 is a donation funded initiative launched in 2011 by David Van Reybrouck with an online survey to identify issues More than 5 000 suggestions were put forward and ranked by thousands of citizens After clustering 25 themes were put forward for a second round of voting Next 700 of the 1000 participants come together for a day to deliberate in Brussels They were split into groups of 10 and after a briefing by experts the participants drew on proposals around the surviving themes A smaller group of citizens the G32 gathered regularly over the ensuing months to refine these proposals and transform them into concrete recommendations These recommendations were to be put to the rest of the country in April 2012 30 31 Canada Edit In Canada a policy jury or citizen jury is a body of people convened to render a decision or advice on a matter of public policy Citizens participating in a policy jury engage in a comprehensive learning and deliberation process before finalizing a conclusion or set of recommendations Citizens Assemblies on Electoral Reform convened in British Columbia in 2004 32 and Ontario in 2006 33 They used policy juries to consider alternative electoral systems Three of Ontario s Local Health Integration Networks LHIN referred their Integrated Health Service Plans IHSP for 2010 2013 to policy juries for advice and refinement LHINs referring their IHSPs to policy juries include the South East LHIN 34 Central LHIN and Mississauga Halton LHIN British Columbia Edit Main article Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform British Columbia 160 people and one chair participated in the British Columbia assembly to discuss and issue guidance on electoral reform Selection Edit The selection process was quasi random One man and one woman were randomly selected from each of British Columbia s 79 electoral districts in addition to two aboriginal members and the chair 35 These members were selected by a civic lottery that ensured gender balance and fair representation by age group and geography First 15 800 invitations were randomly mailed to British Columbians including 200 in each constituency asking if they were willing to put their names into a draw for future candidacy The names then went through two more selection rounds The resulting assembly was not very representative of the larger public The members were dissatisfied with BC s current electoral system while surveys of the public indicated it to be relatively satisfied 36 Lang noted two similarities across the assembly an interest in learning especially about the political process and a commitment to process once it started She wrote this is likely to have contributed to the excellent working dynamic within the Assembly 37 Emphasizing the importance of representativeness in the selection process Pal wrote the requirement of an equal number of members from each electoral district resulted in Citizens Assemblies that did not reflect the actual population and may have skewed the outcome toward proposals that prioritized geographic representation 11 Therefore the emphasis on geography limited the representativeness of the final assemblies Process Edit The assembly conducted a twelve week learning phase involving expert presentations group discussions and access to source materials Work included a review of electoral systems in use around the world and their various effects on the political process This was followed by a public consultation phase lasting from May to June Assembly members held over 50 public hearings and received 1 603 written submissions 35 The members deliberated over which electoral system to recommend and then the assembly took three separate votes 38 Results Edit On December 10 the assembly s final report titled Making Every Vote Count The Case for Electoral Reform in British Columbia was presented to the British Columbia legislature by the assembly In May 2005 the recommendations from the assembly were accepted by 57 7 of voters in a referendum and were supported by a majority in 77 of the 79 electoral districts However the referendum required 60 approval by 60 and majorities in 60 of the 79 districts in order to pass Consequently no change ensued The recommendations were rejected by 60 9 of voters in a follow up referendum Ontario Edit Main article Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform Ontario A total of 103 people took part in Ontario s assembly on electoral reform The recommendations of the Ontario assembly were rejected in the ensuing referendum by 63 of voters retaining the status quo Denmark Edit consensus conference redirects here For other uses see Consensus conference disambiguation Consensus conferences originated in Denmark in the 1980s as one of the earliest attempts by policymakers to include the lay public s opinions in their decision making through public engagement 39 The purpose of consensus conferences is to qualify people s attitudes inasmuch as they are given all the information they require until they are ready to assess a given technology and the resulting product likely looks different from that of other types of assemblies due to the need to reach consensus 40 Consensus conferences are generally deemed suitable for topics that are socially relevant and or that require public support Participants are randomly selected from a group of citizens who are invited to apply 40 41 Invitees are members of the lay public who have no specific knowledge of the issue 40 The resulting panel attempts to be demographically representative Panel members participate in two preparatory weekends and are given material prepared by a communicator to gain a basic understanding of the topic 40 The panel then participates in a 4 day conference The panel participates in a Q amp A session with experts where they hear opposing views Members then prepare a final document summarizing their views and recommendations On the final day the panel then discusses their final document with policy and decision makers France Edit Main article Citizens convention for ecological transition Ireland Edit Main articles Citizens Assembly Ireland and Constitutional Convention Ireland After the Irish financial crisis beginning in 2008 an assembly was among various proposals for political reform In the 2011 general election party manifestos included assemblies or conventions for electoral reform Fine Gael 42 or constitutional reform Fianna Fail 43 Labour Party 44 Sinn Fein 45 and the Green Party 46 The ensuing Fine Gael Labour government s programme included a Constitutional Convention comprising a chairperson nominated by the Taoiseach 33 legislators nominated by political parties and 67 citizens selected to be demographically representative 22 It met from 2012 to 2014 discussing six issues specified by the government and then two assembly selected issues It issued nine reports recommending constitutional amendments and other changes to statute law and legislative practice 47 The government s response was criticised as lukewarm it implemented a few recommendations rejected others and referred more to committees and the civil service for review 48 49 50 The Fine Gael independent minority government formed after the 2016 general election established an assembly in July 2016 without participation by politicians and with a mandate to look at a limited number of key issues over an extended time period 51 23 Netherlands Edit Held in 2006 and composed of 143 randomly selected Dutch citizens the Burgerforum Kiesstelsel was tasked with examining options for electoral reform On December 14 2006 the Burgerforum presented its final report to a minister of the outgoing People s Party VVD A response to the report was delivered in April 2008 when it was rejected by the government of the then ruling coalition 52 In 2020 consultation was started on a bill to implement the group s electoral reforms 53 Poland Edit Beginning in July 2016 after the municipal response to flooding was deemed inadequate by many citizens Gdansk assemblies comprising approximately 60 randomly selected residents made binding decisions to address problems 54 Assembly meetings are calm and even described as enjoyable Names from the city s voter rolls are selected randomly The membership is then balanced according to factors such as education level age sex and district For example the assembly has the same percentage of senior citizens as the city The assembly meets for several days hears testimony from experts asks questions and deliberates in small groups before rendering its binding policy decision 54 United Kingdom Edit Main articles UK Climate Assembly and Citizens Assembly of Scotland Since a 1994 publication by the Institute for Public Policy Research citizens assemblies have become more common in the UK citation needed In 2019 the British government announced the UK Climate Assembly 55 with 108 citizens aiming to deliberate over how to reach net zero emissions by 2050 25 Meetings were delayed due to the COVID 19 pandemic and took place over six weekends between January and May 2020 with a report published in September 2020 In 2019 the government of Scotland announced the Citizens Assembly of Scotland with 6 meetings consisting of 100 citizens taking place between October 2019 and April 2020 56 to address 3 questions 57 What kind of country are we seeking to build How best can we overcome the challenges Scotland and the world face in the 21st century including those arising from Brexit What further work should be carried out to give us the information we need to make informed choices about the future of the country The global environmental movement Extinction Rebellion has called for assemblies on climate change to be used by governments to make decisions on climate and environmental justice In the UK Extinction Rebellion demands that government must create and be led by the decisions of a assembly on climate and ecological justice 58 The central aim of the Burning Pink political party is to replace the British government with assemblies 59 In a 2019 survey conducted of British citizens by the Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts Manufactures and Commerce 57 of those surveyed thought that a citizens assembly would not be sufficiently democratic because it was not large enough 60 Where support was highest for a citizens assembly on Brexit in this survey was Northern Ireland According to the RSA this is perhaps due to greater awareness of the process thanks to the use of assemblies in the Republic of Ireland 60 United States Edit California Edit California Speaks consisted of 3 500 people representing all segments of the population Oregon Edit A Citizens Initiative Review CIR is Oregon s version of an assembly A panel deliberates on a ballot initiative or referendum to be decided in an upcoming election The panelists are chosen through means such as random sampling and stratified sampling to be demographically representative 61 The number of participants is around two dozen They are often paid for their time and travel to that broaden the range of citizens who can participate 62 To date only the state of Oregon has enacted a permanent CIR 63 Colorado Arizona and Massachusetts have conducted pilot tests of the CIR 64 65 66 Process Edit A trained moderator oversees the discussions Over the course of a few days panelists deliberate among themselves and question experts and advocates on all sides of the initiative The panelists write a statement in a form that can be made available though means such as including it in the voter s pamphlet This statement summarizes the best arguments pro and con and lists the number of panelists who recommended voting both for and against the initiative 63 Purposes Edit A CIR tries to strengthen the quality and impact of the public voice in elections and government decisions 67 It addresses specific concerns about initiative campaigns where voters often receive little information or else what they hear for example from paid advertisements is biased 68 Under a CIR voters learn what a representative body of citizens thought about the initiative after careful study and deliberation Evaluation Edit Academic research reported that CIR panelists achieved high quality deliberation 69 Voters became aware of those deliberations through voters pamphlets and found the statement to be helpful to their decisions and voter knowledge about the initiatives increased 70 The panelists themselves developed new attitudes about the political process and their own capabilities 71 Washington State Edit The Washington Climate Assembly was the first state wide climate assembly in America 72 The Assembly took place in 2021 gathering 77 randomly selected citizens to discuss climate change 73 74 The assembly was entirely virtual and addressed the question How can Washington State equitably design and implement climate mitigation strategies while strengthening communities disproportionately impacted by climate change across the State 74 Their recommendations were brought for consideration to the State Legislature Selection Edit The organizers sought citizen input at all levels In November 2020 they held a scoping meeting to determine what the Assembly s focus should be and various concerns were consolidated into three possible questions 74 The organizers then brought these questions to elected officials policy experts tribal leaders and staff environmental non profits businesses community based organizations climate experts deliberative democracy experts and leaders of color and their feedback created the final question The scoping process involved self selected participants 74 For the assembly citizens were selected through stratified random sampling 6 333 potential participants were initially contacted via phone 75 Researchers created 10 000 possible groups of citizens each of which accounted for participants gender age congressional district class race education and beliefs on climate change They then randomly picked one possible group 75 Organizers attempted to break down barriers to participation by providing technology i e laptops and microphones as well as childcare 74 76 Each participant was also paid 500 74 Organization Edit In the first two months of 2021 Assembly members attended seven public Learning Sessions engaging both experts and affected parties The first and last sessions were general overviews while other sessions went into greater detail around one topic such as the economic costs relating to climate change s effects and potential solutions Five deliberative sessions allowed participants to determine priority principles and craft recommendations 74 77 The public was then allowed to comment on the Assembly s recommendations After public comment the Assembly members voted on their recommendations through private votes The Assembly organizers emphasized their commitment to equity stating that the Assembly had a dual focus on climate change and equity The facilitator teams were designed to be diverse They were rated as neutral by most participants at the start of the Assembly 80 of the assembly members said the facilitators were neutral and this reached 90 over the course of the deliberations 76 Political Support Edit The Assembly submitted its recommendations to the state legislature which had no obligation beyond consideration However Democrat state representatives Fey Fitzgibbon Hudgins Kirby and Ryu expressed their support for the assembly in a Herald Net op ed pointing to the examples of climate assemblies in the UK and France They wrote that the assembly was an opportunity to help us all to bring more voices to the table to understand deeply held concerns concerns about the status quo as well as concerns about the policies proposed to fight climate change 78 Support came from Republican representatives as well 77 Opportunities EditAssembly proponents claim that they accomplish two of the three general requirements for direct democracy mass representation deliberation and equity It permits open and public deliberation albeit among a small yet representative body of citizens and it permits ratification endorsement by the whole electorate Democratic values and superior results are potential advantages of such institutions Common interest Edit Electoral reform redistricting campaign finance law and the regulation of political speech are often claimed to be unsuitable for management by self interested politicians 15 Assemblies have repeatedly been deployed to replace such political judgments 13 14 Fearon 79 and separately Nino 80 support the idea that deliberative democratic models tend to generate conditions of impartiality rationality and knowledge increasing the likelihood that the decisions reached are morally correct Several experts assert that selection by sortition prevents disproportionate influence by special interests 13 14 Term limits further reduce the opportunities for special interests to influence assemblies 20 Deliberation Edit Deliberative democracy aims to harness the benefits of deliberation to produce better understanding and resolution of important issues 81 82 Assemblies are intended to stimulate deliberation in which the participants can less easily be captured by special interest 20 39 Deliberative polling advocate Fishkin claimed that deliberation promotes better problem solving by educating and actively engaging participants 83 84 85 Deliberation is claimed to lessen faction by emphasizing resolution over partisanship 13 83 Additionally citizens who were not selected tend to perceive those chosen as both technical experts and as ordinary citizens like themselves As happened in British Columbia these features encouraged voter comfort with the actions of the assembly 86 Representative and inclusive Edit Random lotteries have been explored as election alternatives on grounds that it allows for more accurate representation and inclusivity 20 A truly randomly selected group can embody the median voter Participants are supposed to represent the common person 14 Selection by lot corrects the elitist aspect of elections Successful political candidates typically require access to education money and connections Though elected legislators generally have more experience they are likely to focus on their supporters rather than the larger population Representative democracies have been criticized as not representative at all 10 The lack of female and minority representation in the US Congress is often cited as an example While others lament the importance of branding in electing candidates with recognizable last names for example fueling political dynasties 87 Money is argued to have an outsized role in election outcomes Lessig argued that elections are dominated by money When random selection is used alongside statistical analysis accurate representation can be attained 13 Overlaying quotas on the initial random selection corrects for disproportionate ability willingness across various groups improving representativeness 15 Cognitive diversity Edit Assemblies allow for increased cognitive diversity understood as a diversity of problem solving methods or ways of interpreting the world Quasi random selection does not filter out cognitive diversity as elections are alleged to do 88 Similarly the process does not attempt to select the best performing or most skilled agents 13 88 Some studies report that cognitively diverse groups produce better results than homogenous groups Lu and Page claim that cognitive diversity is valuable for effective problem solving They selected two problem solving teams from a diverse population of intelligent agents the randomly selected team outperformed the best performing agents 14 88 Unique perspectives and interpretations generally enhance analysis 88 89 These results imply that it may be more important to maximize cognitive diversity over individual competence Landemore argued that random selection results in increased efficacy diversity and inclusivity 88 In fact Mill famously argued that governing assemblies should be a fair sample of every grade of intellect among the people over a selection of the greatest political minds 90 Time and cost effective Edit Instead of asking all citizens to deliberate deeply on every issue at more frequent and costly elections assemblies juries can retain the representativeness that is the advantage of voting but at a much reduced cost to the government and its citizens The greatest potential for cost savings however come from the quicker resolution of tough issues and the reduction in wasted spending by rooting out corruption and other inefficiencies associated with a less representative power structure Concerns Expressed EditLegitimacy Edit Representativeness Edit Assemblies require participants to gather at a single place or virtually to discuss the targeted issue s 83 needs update Inevitably not every selected individual has the time and interest to join those events Those who attend are significantly different from those who do not 91 needs update In real world settings attendance can be low 39 In the case of Fishkin s Europe in one room project data supports the concern only 300 out of 869 respondents participated in deliberative meetings 92 needs update Those who attended and those who did not differed significantly 93 Some groups are significantly more likely to attend public meetings than others 94 needs update In general those who participate tend to be motivated and opinionated 39 This is problematic because participant group dynamics and personalities can play an important role in producing different outcomes of discussions 93 95 needs update Also processes that require consensus might result in policy outcomes that don t represent the views of most people 39 Participation Edit Compared to elections assemblies lack mass representation as the assembly involves a tiny minority of the public When people vote they interact with the government and with the law Elections and voting are an important element of sovereignty even if the vote makes little difference Eliminating elections undermines the consultation process that allows everyone to feel like an involved citizen in a representative democracy Lafont for example argues that assemblies undermine deliberation She argues that this is because assemblies asking the public to accept the results of their deliberation is akin to an elite democracy While she clarifies that this variety differs from the standard elite model to the extent that it does not ask citizens to blindly defer to the deliberations of a consolidated political elite it blindly defer to the deliberations of a few selected citizens 96 Fishkin argues in turn that this model is not elite because it uses ordinary citizens who are representative of the population Lafont rejects this characterization arguing that people are subjected to a filter of deliberative experience which makes them no longer a representative sample of the citizenry at large 96 Landemore responds to Lafont by arguing that while her concerns are valid large scale discourse is simply impossible never mind superior 97 Landemore recommends making assemblies as open to the larger public as possible 97 For example their decisions could be validated via a referendum Fishkin notes a trilemma among the ideas of political equality deliberation and participation 85 In a body such as an assembly political equality is achieved through a random and ideally representative selection process while deliberation is achieved in the actions of the assembly However since the body is made up of a subset of the population it does not achieve the goal of participation on a broad scale Fishkin attempts to solve the trilemma so posed by considering an entire deliberative society which would constitute a deliberative macrocosm He sees assemblies as experiments on how to realize macro scale deliberation later on 85 Threatening to incumbent power structures Edit Warren and Gastil claim in the British Columbia case that other citizens should have been able to treat it as a facilitative trustee a trusted information and decision proxy 98 Participants essentially became informal experts allowing them to act as an extension of the larger public The introduction of the assembly according to John Parkinson undermined the trust and power that British Columbia political parties and advocacy groups had gained It could also undermine the epistemic ethical and democratic functions of the whole 26 Briefing materials expert objectivity Edit Briefing materials must be balanced diverse and accurate This presents the same problem that assemblies address how to ensure balanced representation One approach is to convene an advisory committee which in turn faces the same issue 99 100 Accountability Edit Assemblies depending on their design might not provide enough accountability to prevent members from engaging in inappropriate behavior 101 Outspoken citizens Edit Conversational dynamics are important to successful assemblies However more outspoken citizens tend to dominate the conversation This can potentially be minimized by an effective facilitator The reliance on conversation and the ultimate need to reach a conclusion can mask differences in opinion particularly among the less outspoken 102 needs update Group polarization Edit The possibility of group polarization is another concern Cass Sunstein argued in 1999 that deliberation tends to move groups and the individuals who compose them toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by their own predeliberation judgments 103 needs update Consensus conferences also have the potential to make individuals tend to the extreme in their opinions i e citizens essentially rally around their own views in the presence of opposing views 39 However Fishkin responded that this depends on how the assembly is structured Resources such as briefing materials and expert testimony are meant to ameliorate extreme views by supplying information and correcting misinformation misunderstanding 85 Competence of average person esp intelligence leadership Edit Gil Delannoi and Oliver Dowlen argue that the average citizen is unequipped to lead given their average intelligence and competence 14 However a study comparing the debate quality of an Irish Citizen s Assembly and an Irish parliamentary committee found that citizens showed a deeper cognitive grasp of the subject matter at stake abortion 104 See also EditClimate assembly Consensus decision making Deliberative democracy Democratic deficit Direct democracy Jury Local Health Integration Network Participatory action research Participatory democracy Participatory justice SortitionReferences Edit Crosby Ned Hottinger John C 2011 The Citizens Jury Process The Book of the States 321 325 Retrieved 11 October 2020 Dryzek John S Bachtiger Andre Milewicz Karolina 2011 Toward a Deliberative Global Citizens Assembly Global Policy 2 1 33 42 doi 10 1111 j 1758 5899 2010 00052 x ISSN 1758 5880 Warren Mark E Pearse Hilary 2008 Designing Deliberative Democracy The British Columbia Citizens Assembly Cambridge University Press a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a Cite journal requires journal help Robin Clarke Ruth Rennie Clare Delap Vicki Coombe 30 November 2000 People s Juries in Social Inclusion Partnerships A Pilot Project The Scottish Government Development Department Research Programme Retrieved 28 December 2011 PLA Notes 40 Deliberative Democracy and Citizen Empowerment IIED 2001 ISBN 978 1 84369 284 3 Cesnulaityte Ieva 23 July 2020 Models of representative deliberative processes Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions doi 10 1787 36f3f279 en ISBN 9789264837621 S2CID 226688526 Crosby Ned Kelly Janet M Schaefer Paul 1986 Citizens Panels A New Approach to Citizen Participation Public Administration Review 46 2 170 178 doi 10 2307 976169 ISSN 0033 3352 JSTOR 976169 Consensus Conference involve org uk 27 June 2018 Retrieved 27 November 2020 Pimbert Michel Wakeford Tom October 2003 Prajateerpu Power and Knowledge The Politics of Participatory Action Research in Development Part 1 Context Process and Safeguards Action Research 1 2 184 207 doi 10 1177 14767503030012004 S2CID 144374547 a b c d e Manin Bernard 1997 The principles of representative government Cambridge University Press a b Pal Michael 2012 The Promise and Limits of Citizens Assemblies Deliberation Institutions and the Law of Democracy PDF Queen s University at Kingston 38 259 294 Archived from the original PDF on 2021 03 28 Retrieved 2019 03 26 Floridia Antonio 2018 09 06 Bachtiger Andre Dryzek John S Mansbridge Jane Warren Mark eds The Origins of the Deliberative Turn The Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy 34 54 doi 10 1093 oxfordhb 9780198747369 013 25 ISBN 9780198747369 a b c d e f Stone Peter 2011 Lotteries in Public Life Imprint Academics ISBN 978 1845402082 a b c d e f g Delannoi Gil and Oliver Dowlen 2010 Sortition Theory and Practice Imprint Academic ISBN 978 1845401993 a b c d Dowlen Oliver 2009 The Political Potential of Sortition A study of the random selection of citizens for public office Imprint Academic ISBN 978 1845401795 a b c Warren and Pearse 2008 Designing Deliberative Democracy Cambridge University Press p 10 Flanigan Bailey Golz Paul Gupta Anupam Hennig Brett Procaccia Ariel D 26 August 2021 Fair algorithms for selecting citizens assemblies Nature 596 7873 548 552 doi 10 1038 s41586 021 03788 6 PMC 8387237 PMID 34349266 The myth of the citizens assembly POLITICO 18 June 2019 Retrieved 22 September 2022 Seven Citizens Assembly members not randomly recruited The Irish Times 2018 Retrieved 22 September 2022 a b c d Barnett Anthony and Peter Carty 2008 The Athenian Option Radical Reform for the House of Lords What Are Citizens Assemblies www electoral reform org uk Retrieved 2020 02 02 a b Convention on the Constitution Ireland Constitutional Convention Archived from the original on 18 January 2018 Retrieved 1 June 2016 a b Power Elaine 27 July 2016 Judge Mary Laffoy to chair Citizens Assembly on the 8th Amendment Retrieved 27 July 2016 Assembly Members Citizens Assembly www citizensassembly scot Retrieved 2020 02 02 a b Climate Assembly UK Climate Assembly UK www climateassembly uk Retrieved 2020 02 02 a b Deliberative systems deliberative democracy at the large scale Parkinson John Cambridge Cambridge Univ Press 2012 ISBN 9781107025394 OCLC 802706974 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a CS1 maint others link Rawls John 2005 A theory of justice Harvard University Press ISBN 0674017722 OCLC 474723683 Dahl Robert A 1982 Dilemmas of pluralist democracy autonomy vs control New Haven Yale University Press ISBN 0585348790 OCLC 47010959 Fishkin James Kousser Thad Luskin Robert C Siu Alice December 2015 Deliberative Agenda Setting Piloting Reform of Direct Democracy in California Perspectives on Politics 13 4 1030 1042 doi 10 1017 S1537592715002297 ISSN 1537 5927 S2CID 36826069 G100 Retrieved 2 January 2012 Et si on avait essaye le G1000 Le Soir 29 November 2011 Retrieved 2 January 2012 permanent dead link Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform IMPROVING DEMOCRACY IN B C Archived from the original on 2005 09 24 Retrieved 2005 10 09 Ontario Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform www citizensassembly gov on ca South East Local Health Integration Network LHIN www southeastlhin on ca a b Elections BC May 17 2005 Report of the Chief Election Officer 38th Provincial Election 2005 Referendum on Electoral Reform PDF p 34 Blais Andre Kenneth Carty Patrick Fournier 2005 http www crcee umontreal ca pdf Citizens 20Choice 08052 pdf Lang Amy March 1 2007 But Is It for Real The British Columbia Citizens Assembly as a Model of State Sponsored Citizen Empowerment Politics amp Society 35 35 70 doi 10 1177 0032329206297147 S2CID 1852236 Citizen s Assembly on Electoral Reform of British Columbia Final Report December 2004 Making Every Vote Count The Case for Electoral Reform in British Columbia PDF p 10 a b c d e f Scheufele D A 2010 Modern citizenship or policy dead end Evaluating the need for public participation in science policy making and why public meetings may not be the answer PDF Retrieved 19 Oct 2017 a b c d Danish Board of Technology 2006 The consensus conference Archived from the original on 16 August 2011 Retrieved 13 November 2011 Einsiedel Edna F Jelsoe Erling Breck Thomas 1 January 2001 Publics at the technology table The consensus conference in Denmark Canada and Australia Public Understanding of Science 10 1 83 98 doi 10 3109 a036857 inactive 31 December 2022 ISSN 0963 6625 a href Template Cite journal html title Template Cite journal cite journal a CS1 maint DOI inactive as of December 2022 link Fine Gael Manifesto PDF RTE 2011 p 7 Archived from the original PDF on 7 March 2012 Retrieved 9 April 2012 Real Plan Better Future Fianna Fail manifesto 2011 PDF RTE 2011 p 31 Archived from the original PDF on 7 March 2012 Retrieved 9 April 2012 Labour s Manifesto 2011 PDF RTE 2011 p 46 Retrieved 9 April 2012 Sinn Fein General Election Manifesto 2011 PDF RTE p 33 Archived from the original PDF on 21 February 2011 Retrieved 9 April 2012 Playing to Our Strengths Green Party Manifesto 2011 PDF RTE p 13 Archived from the original PDF on 7 March 2012 Retrieved 9 April 2012 Arnold Tom 1 April 2014 Inside the Convention on the Constitution The Irish Times Retrieved 1 April 2014 O Toole Fintan 3 March 2015 How hopes raised by the Constitutional Convention were dashed The Irish Times Retrieved 20 March 2015 Farrell David 17 March 2015 Constitutional Convention brand is in jeopardy The Irish Times Retrieved 20 March 2015 McGee Harry 26 January 2015 Only two proposals for Constitution referendum The Irish Times Retrieved 28 January 2015 A Programme for a Partnership Government PDF Government of Ireland 11 May 2016 p 153 Retrieved 1 June 2016 Patrick Fournier et al When Citizens Decide Lessons from Citizen Assemblies on Electoral Reform Consultatie Wetsvoorstel Burgerforum kiesstelsel Dutch government 15 December 2020 Retrieved 18 December 2020 a b Resilience 22 Nov 2017 post by Tin Gazivoda Solutions How the Poles Are Making Democracy Work Again in Gdansk https www resilience org stories 2017 11 22 solutions how the poles are making democracy work again in gdansk Parliament sends 30 000 invitations for citizens assembly on climate change News from Parliament UK Parliament Retrieved 2020 02 02 Weekend Content Citizens Assembly www citizensassembly scot Retrieved 2020 02 02 Welcome to the Citizens Assembly of Scotland Citizens Assembly www citizensassembly scot Retrieved 2020 02 02 Citizens Assembly Extinction Rebellion Retrieved 2020 02 02 Taylor Diane 25 June 2020 Extinction Rebellion activists launch UK Beyond Politics party by stealing food The Guardian Retrieved 3 December 2020 a b RSA New survey highlights the pros and cons of a citizens assembly on Brexit RSA www thersa org Retrieved 2019 03 20 Gastil John Richards Robert Knobloch Katherine 2 January 2014 Vicarious Deliberation How the Oregon Citizens Initiative Review Influenced Deliberation in Mass Elections International Journal of Communication 8 28 ISSN 1932 8036 Citizens Initiative Review Government Innovators Network www innovations harvard edu a b Robert Richards Oregon Citizens Initiative Review http participedia net en methods citizens initiative review Archived 2017 04 25 at the Wayback Machine Massachusetts Citizens Initiative Review pilot project Massachusetts Citizens Initiative Review pilot project Experiment to help voters understand Colorado ballot measures CPR Archived from the original on 2015 01 03 Retrieved 2017 07 21 https sites psu edu citizensinitiativereview files 2015 01 CIR 2016 Arizona Report 26npu2z pdf bare URL PDF Evaluating a New Governing Institution An Assessment of the Citizens Initiative Review National Communication Association July 19 2016 John Gastil Beyond Endorsements and Partisan Cues Given Voters Viable Alternaties to Unreliable Cognitive Shortcuts http sites psu edu citizensinitiativereview wp content uploads sites 23162 2015 01 Gastil 2014 Beyond Endorsements and Partisan Cues Giving Vote pdf Katherine R Knobloch John Gastil Justin Reedy and Katherine Cramer Walsh Did They Deliberate Applying an Evaluative Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens Initiative Review http sites psu edu citizensinitiativereview wp content uploads sites 23162 2015 01 DidTheyDeliberate pdf Katherine R Knobloch John Gastil Traci Feller and Robert C Richards Empowering Citizen Deliberation in Direct Democratic Elections A Field Study of the 2012 Oregon Citizens Initiative Review http factsreports revues org 3448 Katherine R Knobloch and John Gastil Civic Re socialisation The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation http sites psu edu citizensinitiativereview wp content uploads sites 23162 2015 01 Civic resocialization pdf Landi Bonface January 22 2021 Washington is the first U S state to hold a climate assembly Inhabitat Washington Climate Assembly a b c d e f g WASHINGTON CLIMATE ASSEMBLY FINAL REPORT PDF March 19 2021 a b Washington Climate Assembly Sortition Methodology a b Climate Assembly Legislative Meet and Greet YouTube March 19 2021 a b Godwin Mandy January 19 2021 Washington hosts first climate assembly in the United States Crosscut Citizens assembly would seek consensus on climate The Everett Herald May 31 2020 Elster Jon 1998 Chapter 2 essay by Fearon a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a Missing or empty title help CS1 maint location link Nino Carlos 1996 a href Template Cite book html title Template Cite book cite book a Missing or empty title help Fishkin James 2009 When the People Speak Oxford UP Fishkin James S Deliberative Polling Executive Summary CDD Retrieved 10 November 2012 a b c Fishkin J S Luskin R C Jowell R 2000 Deliberative polling and public consultation Parliamentary Affairs 53 4 657 666 doi 10 1093 pa 53 4 657 Deliberative Polling Toward a Better Informed Democracy Stanford University Center for Deliberative Democracy a b c d S Fishkin James 2018 Democracy when the people are thinking revitalizing our politics through public deliberation 1st ed Oxford United Kingdom ISBN 9780198820291 OCLC 1006802546 Ferejohn John The Citizen s Assembly Model in M E Warren et H Pearse eds Designing Deliberative Democracy The British Columbia Citizens Assembly p 199 200 Against Elections David Van Reybrouck 2016 p 29 a b c d e Landemore Helene May 2013 Deliberation cognitive diversity and democratic inclusiveness an epistemic argument for the random selection of representatives Synthese 190 7 1209 1231 doi 10 1007 s11229 012 0062 6 S2CID 21572876 Hong Lu Page Scott E 2004 11 16 Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high ability problem solvers Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 101 46 16385 16389 Bibcode 2004PNAS 10116385H doi 10 1073 pnas 0403723101 ISSN 0027 8424 PMC 528939 PMID 15534225 Mills John Stuart 1875 Considerations on Representative Government Henry Holt and Company Fishkin J S 1996 Bringing deliberation to democracy Public Perspective 7 1 14 Fishkin J S 1995 The voice of the people New Haven Yale University Press a b Merkle D M 1996 The polls Review The National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll Public Opinion Quarterly 60 4 588 619 doi 10 1086 297775 McLeod J M D Scheufele D A Moy P 1999 Community communication and participation The role of mass media and interpersonal discussion in local political participation Political Communication 16 3 315 336 doi 10 1080 105846099198659 Admir J G 1996 The Hawthorne effect is a common artifact in social research Public Perspective 7 14 16 a b Lafont Christina 2015 Deliberation Participation and Democratic Legitimacy Should Deliberative Mini publics Shape Public Policy The Journal of Political Philosophy 23 40 63 doi 10 1111 jopp 12031 a b Landemore Helene 2020 Open Democracy Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty First Century Princeton University Press pp 115 116 Warren Mark E Gastil John April 2015 Can Deliberative Minipublics Address the Cognitive Challenges of Democratic Citizenship The Journal of Politics 77 2 562 574 doi 10 1086 680078 ISSN 0022 3816 S2CID 155508734 Siu Alice Deliberative polling CIVICUS Archived from the original on 30 June 2010 Retrieved 12 November 2012 Fishkin James 1 December 2013 Deliberation by the People Themselves Entry Points for the Public Voice PDF Election Law Journal Rules Politics and Policy 12 4 490 507 doi 10 1089 elj 2013 0200 Retrieved 3 December 2020 Mark Warren Citizen Representative in M E Warren et H Pearse eds Designing Deliberative Democracy The British Columbia Citizens Assembly Cambridge Cambridge University Press 2009 pp 50 69 p 59 Fishkin J S Luskin R S Jowell R 2000 Deliberative polling and public consultation PDF Parliamentary Affairs 53 4 657 666 doi 10 1093 pa 53 4 657 Retrieved 3 December 2020 dead link Sunstein Cass R 1999 The Law of Group Polarization SSRN Working Paper Series doi 10 2139 ssrn 199668 ISSN 1556 5068 S2CID 145439741 Suiter Jane M Farrell David Harris Clodagh Murphy Philip 2021 07 23 Measuring Epistemic Deliberation on Polarized Issues The Case of Abortion Provision in Ireland Political Studies Review 20 4 630 647 doi 10 1177 14789299211020909 ISSN 1478 9299 S2CID 237729615 External links EditThe jury is out How far can participatory projects go towards reclaiming democracy 2008 Examples of citizens juries on the governance of food and agricultural research in West Africa South Asia and Andean Altiplano Open access analysis of citizens juries 2002 BBC Today Programme Citizens Jury Peter Dienel s Planungszelle Glasgow People s Jury A Blueprint For Local Decision Making Film about the UK GM Jury The locals know what they need Deliberative Democracy and Citizen Empowerment An academic review of citizen s juries published in the journal Social Research Update Sorted Civic lotteries and the future of public participation Ontario Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform British Columbia Citizens Assembly on Electoral Reform Local Health Integration Network MASS LBP The Danish consensus conference model Consensus Conference Manual The Loka Institute Tracking Danish Style Citizen Based Deliberative Consensus Conferences WorldwidePortals Society Politics Retrieved from https en wikipedia org w index php title Citizens 27 assembly amp oldid 1139739118, wikipedia, wiki, book, books, library,

article

, read, download, free, free download, mp3, video, mp4, 3gp, jpg, jpeg, gif, png, picture, music, song, movie, book, game, games.