Democracy using sortition needs decision-making power. But it is not so simple as having a citizens' assembly proposal being enacted. There is always a risk that any group, even with good deliberative process, may go "off track" due to groupthink, information cascades, corruption, or deferral to a uniquely influential member. So, every citizens' assembly proposal needs a check and balance. But letting politicians do that is very bad process (as it undoes the benefit of non-partisan deliberation). Ideally, a second much larger (perhaps 1,000) random sample jury would hear testimony about the proposal, hear pro and con arguments from a wide range of experts, and vote. That would be well-informed, non-tribalism democracy.
Corruption is a huge risk with the prize being beyond large.
It is I think safe to assume homeland security executives are highly aware of this risk and actively investigate all parts of the processes including particularly significant people's histories
They have political bosses though.
It would be helpful that they made their concerns public at suitable times such as when resigning for the good of their country as the "West" international importance evaporates in the growing and present multipolar world
I fully agree with Claudia. Citizens’ Assemblies only make sense if they are able to DECIDE, not if they return their results to the parliaments who follow their proper logic of power by trying to be (re-)elected by any means (#PowerApriori: winning elections is the a priori of power in democracies, so it always comes first, rest: second, third…). The logic of citizens assemblies is completely different: without any need to please some interest groups, deliberation results in wise decisions—unless decisions are taken away from them under the pretext of “legitimacy”.
the french NGO "Les CRD" has experimented a solution able to sucess the present topic at local level (big town) : random chosen citenzen are deciding together with Elected people what they will vote for. As result : 100% of proposal are voted. The methode is explain here in French : https://lescrd.org/index.php/notre-solution/ We are on the way to expériment at national level in 2025, about climate topic. We need help, join us here : www.lesdecarbonautes.fr (in french)
Claudia Chwalisz asked a "Why not?... to Deleberative Democracy (DD) decisions being made law without mentioning checks and balances or second chambers etc
A basic answer is the potential for corrupting DD could exceed the present catastrophic scales those who have the time to learn of broken democracy
The obvious repky is elect politicians that make legal promises to implement the Deliberative Democracy decisions unless conscience or non disclosable state secrets give an over riding priority to refuse the initial DD decision. This does not mean a majority of elected politicians could win it exchange arguments with 2nd or 3rd chambers.
An advantage to this is no change in constitutions is required and reverting to the present system would be the voters option not excluding others.
Thank you again,
A question experts might be asked is which Deliberative Democracy assembly hadn't been effectly corrupted in part of whole by politicians as normal.
Dear AI,
Who first proposed Deliberative Democracy having a ruling 1st and second chamber with both chambers consisting if elected people from everyday life being the true servants of the people?
Copilot AI
"The concept of Deliberative Democracy, where political decisions are the product of fair and reasonable discussion among citizens, has been influenced by many thinkers. However, the specific idea of a ruling first and second chamber with elected individuals from everyday life serving as true representatives of the people does not have a single originator."
A question experts might be asked is which Deliberative Democracy assembly hadn't been effectly corrupted by politicians as normal.
Dear AI,
Copilot AI continued with
"Deliberative Democracy as a school of thought has been shaped by philosophers such as **John Rawls** and **Jürgen Habermas**. Rawls advocated for the use of reason in securing a just political society, while Habermas emphasized fair procedures and clear communication for legitimate and consensual decisions by citizens¹². The term "Deliberative Democracy" itself was popularized in the 1980s and 1990s, with Joseph M. Bessette being credited with coining it in his 1980 work².
The idea of having chambers consisting of elected people from everyday life aligns with the broader principles of Deliberative Democracy, which seeks to involve citizens directly in the decision-making process to secure the public good through reason¹².
Democracy using sortition needs decision-making power. But it is not so simple as having a citizens' assembly proposal being enacted. There is always a risk that any group, even with good deliberative process, may go "off track" due to groupthink, information cascades, corruption, or deferral to a uniquely influential member. So, every citizens' assembly proposal needs a check and balance. But letting politicians do that is very bad process (as it undoes the benefit of non-partisan deliberation). Ideally, a second much larger (perhaps 1,000) random sample jury would hear testimony about the proposal, hear pro and con arguments from a wide range of experts, and vote. That would be well-informed, non-tribalism democracy.
Corruption is a huge risk with the prize being beyond large.
It is I think safe to assume homeland security executives are highly aware of this risk and actively investigate all parts of the processes including particularly significant people's histories
They have political bosses though.
It would be helpful that they made their concerns public at suitable times such as when resigning for the good of their country as the "West" international importance evaporates in the growing and present multipolar world
I completely agree, but I didn't want to complicate things any further. 😅
Worst—less bad—good—great—as close to ideal as it can get.
I fully agree with Claudia. Citizens’ Assemblies only make sense if they are able to DECIDE, not if they return their results to the parliaments who follow their proper logic of power by trying to be (re-)elected by any means (#PowerApriori: winning elections is the a priori of power in democracies, so it always comes first, rest: second, third…). The logic of citizens assemblies is completely different: without any need to please some interest groups, deliberation results in wise decisions—unless decisions are taken away from them under the pretext of “legitimacy”.
Hello,
sory for my bad english,
the french NGO "Les CRD" has experimented a solution able to sucess the present topic at local level (big town) : random chosen citenzen are deciding together with Elected people what they will vote for. As result : 100% of proposal are voted. The methode is explain here in French : https://lescrd.org/index.php/notre-solution/ We are on the way to expériment at national level in 2025, about climate topic. We need help, join us here : www.lesdecarbonautes.fr (in french)
Scincerly,
Louis-Marie Blanchard,
funder of Les CRD ans Les Décarbonautes
louis-marie.blanchard@lescrd.org
Merci Louise-Marie Blanchard :-)
Jude
https://oneworld.earth/members/16636159
Thank you again,
Claudia Chwalisz asked a "Why not?... to Deleberative Democracy (DD) decisions being made law without mentioning checks and balances or second chambers etc
A basic answer is the potential for corrupting DD could exceed the present catastrophic scales those who have the time to learn of broken democracy
The obvious repky is elect politicians that make legal promises to implement the Deliberative Democracy decisions unless conscience or non disclosable state secrets give an over riding priority to refuse the initial DD decision. This does not mean a majority of elected politicians could win it exchange arguments with 2nd or 3rd chambers.
An advantage to this is no change in constitutions is required and reverting to the present system would be the voters option not excluding others.
Thank you again,
A question experts might be asked is which Deliberative Democracy assembly hadn't been effectly corrupted in part of whole by politicians as normal.
Dear AI,
Who first proposed Deliberative Democracy having a ruling 1st and second chamber with both chambers consisting if elected people from everyday life being the true servants of the people?
Copilot AI
"The concept of Deliberative Democracy, where political decisions are the product of fair and reasonable discussion among citizens, has been influenced by many thinkers. However, the specific idea of a ruling first and second chamber with elected individuals from everyday life serving as true representatives of the people does not have a single originator."
A question experts might be asked is which Deliberative Democracy assembly hadn't been effectly corrupted by politicians as normal.
Dear AI,
Copilot AI continued with
"Deliberative Democracy as a school of thought has been shaped by philosophers such as **John Rawls** and **Jürgen Habermas**. Rawls advocated for the use of reason in securing a just political society, while Habermas emphasized fair procedures and clear communication for legitimate and consensual decisions by citizens¹². The term "Deliberative Democracy" itself was popularized in the 1980s and 1990s, with Joseph M. Bessette being credited with coining it in his 1980 work².
The idea of having chambers consisting of elected people from everyday life aligns with the broader principles of Deliberative Democracy, which seeks to involve citizens directly in the decision-making process to secure the public good through reason¹².
https://citizensassemblieshow.wordpress.com/2024/01/18/how-can-checks-balances-be-applied-to-citizens-assemblies-decisions-and-still-have-them-legally-binding/