Hélène Landemore is a present-day visionary for our future history. On trust in referendums: from the experience of USA ballot initiatives, we know media framing, massive advertising spending, and digital misinformation can heavily drive the final outcomes. It's not a matter of trust in the public, but being realistic about the media environment and the power of opposition campaigns can biased media networks. We can never talk about public opinion without talking about public information channels (media, social media).
The referendum story is the most consequential detail here: the assembly didn't lack public support - 13 of 14 structuring proposals had outside majorities - it lacked an accurate picture of that support. There's a named mechanism under that: pluralistic ignorance, amplified by engagement-ranked feeds. The diffusion data (Goel-Watts, a billion+ traced events) shows online visibility comes from rare one-to-many broadcasts, not from how many people quietly agree - so the distribution a feed shows you is not the distribution that exists, and the loud tail reads as "the public". Deliberating citizens aren't exempt; they import the distortion. Which suggests a cheap design element alongside the civic love: build the outside-mirror in - representative polling of the wider public on emerging proposals, shown to members before they choose how far to push. The internal trust Landemore describes has an external twin, and it's measurable. The silent majority was with them; they couldn't see it.
Wonderful feedback from the cutting edge of democratic re-energising - many thanks!! (Am sharing with Oxford City Green Party activists and others.)
Hélène Landemore is a present-day visionary for our future history. On trust in referendums: from the experience of USA ballot initiatives, we know media framing, massive advertising spending, and digital misinformation can heavily drive the final outcomes. It's not a matter of trust in the public, but being realistic about the media environment and the power of opposition campaigns can biased media networks. We can never talk about public opinion without talking about public information channels (media, social media).
The referendum story is the most consequential detail here: the assembly didn't lack public support - 13 of 14 structuring proposals had outside majorities - it lacked an accurate picture of that support. There's a named mechanism under that: pluralistic ignorance, amplified by engagement-ranked feeds. The diffusion data (Goel-Watts, a billion+ traced events) shows online visibility comes from rare one-to-many broadcasts, not from how many people quietly agree - so the distribution a feed shows you is not the distribution that exists, and the loud tail reads as "the public". Deliberating citizens aren't exempt; they import the distortion. Which suggests a cheap design element alongside the civic love: build the outside-mirror in - representative polling of the wider public on emerging proposals, shown to members before they choose how far to push. The internal trust Landemore describes has an external twin, and it's measurable. The silent majority was with them; they couldn't see it.