Citizens' assembly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

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 body formed from citizens or generally people to deliberate on an issue or issues of local or national or international importance.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] The membership of a citizens' assembly is randomly selected, as in other forms of sortition. It is a mechanism of participatory action research (PAR) that draws on the symbolism, and some of the practices, of a legal trial by jury.[9] The purpose is to employ a cross-section of the public to study the options available to the state on certain questions and to propose answers to these questions through rational and reasoned discussion and the use of various methods of inquiry such as directly questioning experts. In many cases, the state will require these proposals to be accepted by the general public through a referendum before becoming law.

The citizens' assembly aims to reinstall trust in the political process by taking direct ownership of decision-making.[10] To that end, citizens' assemblies intend to remedy 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 citizens' assemblies to reach decisions in this way is related to the traditions of deliberative democracy and popular sovereignty in political theory. While these traditions stretch back to origins in ancient Athenian democracy, they have become newly relevant both to theorists and politicians as part of a deliberative turn in democratic theory. From the 1980s to the early 1990s, this deliberative turn began, shifting from the predominant theoretical framework of participatory democracy toward deliberative democracy, initially in the work of Jane Mansbridge and Joseph M. Bessette.[12] Since, citizens' assemblies have been used in countries such as Canada and the Netherlands to deliberate on reform of the system used to elect politicians in those countries.

Ordinarily, citizens' assemblies are state initiatives. However, there are also examples of independent citizens' assemblies, such as the Le G1000 in Belgium or the We The Citizens project in Ireland. The People's Parliament was a UK's deliberative forum of randomly selected citizens set up as a television program.

Citizen's assemblies have been proposed as a potential solution to dealing with divisive and highly politicised issues such as same-sex marriage, abortion, and decarbonisation measures.

Defining features[edit]


Membership of a citizens' assembly is deliberate, specific and integral to fulfilling the assembly's goal. Some of the components of membership for the assemblies are described below.


A crucial component of citizens' assemblies, quasi-random selection or sortition is used to promote political equality and inclusiveness in the assembly.[13] Unlike elections, which many claim elects elite, selection by lot permits true representation of any respective community.[14] Random lotteries have become an alternative to elections on the grounds of equality, cost efficiency, and representativeness.[15] The selection of participants in citizens' assemblies aspires to be completely random but is actually only nearly random, therefore quasi-random, due to the additional variable of self-selection and contrived over-representation of minorities.[16] The issue with pure random selection is that people cannot be forced to participate, and those who opt out of participation make the citizens' assembly less than representative. Due to this variable, pure randomness must be abandoned and certain quotas on a basis of gender, ethnicity, or various other categories considered, which has been applied in citizens' assemblies in the past.[16] Though this makes the selection process only quasi-random, some posit that it is a better option.[14] The use of lot in governance has historic significance and was actually famously implemented in the Athenian democracy and various European communities to allow for more fair governance.[10][14][15][17]

Term limits[edit]

Regular turnover of representatives is a requisite component of citizens' assemblies: The participants of citizens' Assemblies are subject to a limited amount of time to serve. This standard is instituted to preserve the representative nature of the assembly and to discourage any bias. The regular turnover of representatives is critical to maintaining cognitive diversity in the long term and avoiding the creation of an elite class or oligarchy. When there are no term limits, there is a serious threat that the assembly will become homogenous or turn to private interest, losing sight of the common good.[10]


The size of a citizens' assembly is very deliberate and designed to capture a representative cross-section of the population in question.[16] The size will depend on the purpose, demographics, and population of the community the assembly aims to represent in order to capture statistical soundness. The citizens' assembly is relatively small in order to make it more manageable and to enhance the deliberative process.[10] Therefore, most Citizens' Assemblies consist of between 50 and 200 citizens.[18] In Ireland, the 2012-14 Convention on the Constitution was composed of 66 citizens, 33 representatives chosen by political parties, and a chairperson;[19] the subsequent recurring Citizens' Assembly for Ireland recruited 99 citizens reflecting the country's demographic diversity, and appointed an expert chairperson.[20] The 2019-20 Citizens' Assembly of Scotland consists of 100 citizens.[21] The 2020 Citizens' Climate Assembly UK consists of 110 members of the public.[22]


The function and goals of a citizen's assembly have no apriori limits. Though examples of assemblies have been historically limited to proposals concerning electoral reform, the purpose of the citizen's assembly could potentially be anything as it relates to governing.

Proposal power versus decision-making power[edit]

Though citizens' assemblies were used as a method of governing in Greek democracy, modern citizens' assemblies have been given merely the power to propose rather than the power to enact. Considered a type of experiment, Citizens' assemblies sometimes function as a sort of referendum, in which the decisions made during the assembly are communicated to or put to vote in Parliament or another elected governing body. Sometimes a proposal from a citizens' assembly is sent to the general electorate as a referendum.



A city council deliberating in 1636.

A key component of citizens' assemblies is its deliberative nature. Deliberation allows for the education of participants, who formerly may be uninformed on the specific issue of interest. Citizens' assemblies typically provide access to experts on the matter, ranging from politicians to analysts to scientists. By incorporating the views, information and arguments of experts and then asking the participants to engage in collaborative discussion, citizens' assemblies aim to educate the people selected, and ultimately, produce a vote or result representative the educated public interest. Deliberation allows for representation of the common person while attempting to remove the issue of ignorance or apathy, which typically goes hand in hand.[citation needed] Similar initiatives like Deliberative polling attempt to utilize this benefit.

Additionally, John Parkinson argues that the intent of deliberation in democratic systems is to "replace power plays and political tantrums with 'the mild voice of reason.'" Deliberation is a process concerned not only with procedural effectiveness but also with substantive epistemic outcomes. Parkinson continues that the process reframes "political legitimacy" as involving "not just doing things right, but doing the right things."[23] This view contrasts with the purely procedural account of legitimacy, of which John 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."[24] While deliberation is itself a procedure, it is also epistemically driven, and thus broadens the consideration of legitimacy.


Agenda-setting refers to establishing a plan for the substantive issues on which to deliberate in a citizens' assembly. In major examples of citizens' assemblies, such as those in British Columbia and Ontario, the legislature set the agenda before the assemblies were convened (in both these examples, the agenda was electoral reform). Robert Dahl states, however, that final control over agenda-setting 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."[25] This problem remains long unresolved, as both agendas imposed from outside the citizens or from a small body within them both limit the people's ultimate control of the agenda. While the petition process theoretically extends the possibility to set the agenda to all citizens, the gathering of signatures is a difficult process for citizens or even groups without the necessary resources. James Fishkin writes "The equal opportunity is formal and symbolic, while effective final control is exercised by those who can finance the signature gatherers."[26]


The term "citizens' jury" was coined in the late 1980s by the Jefferson Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota. They had developed the process in 1974 as a "citizens' committee", but decided to create and trademark the new name in order to protect the process from commercialization. The practice of citizens' juries has thus been tightly regulated in the US. Virtually the same process was created in Germany in the early 1970s; American "inventor" Ned Crosby and German "inventor" Peter Dienel said that they did not learn of each other's work until 1985. In Oxfordshire[4] in the late 1990s, was the use of a people's jury to resolve where to site a waste recycling plant. A group of twelve people was selected as though they were going to belong to a legal jury. They were then taken on a guided tour of the county and introduced to experts in various fields. After they had been given the opportunity to perform sufficient research, they were asked to choose the site to use. In Britain, the process spread rapidly because of a publication by the Institute for Public Policy Research in 1994. Outside the US and Germany, citizens' juries have been conducted in many different ways, with many different objectives, and with varying degrees of success.

As with much PAR, there is a great deal of controversy over what constitutes good practice or professionalism in the area of public consultation. Lacking the methodological self-regulation that exists in some areas of PAR, or the legal sanctions available to the owners of the citizens' jury brand in the US, consultation practitioners elsewhere are free to use almost whatever label they wish, without being limited to the approach taken by those who invented the particular tool. Conversely, many people have used all three elements above, yet called their processes by another name: community x-change, consensus conferences, citizen's councils, deliberative focus groups or, most commonly, citizens' panels. The participants' roles once a jury has taken place vary from nothing to being asked to help bring about the recommendations they have made.

A citizens' jury in Mali on the future of food was endorsed in a 2011 briefing by the United Nations special rapporteur Olivier De Schutter.[27]

Whilst the idea of people's juries has been hailed as being of great benefit in a democracy, it has also been pointed out that the jury's vote is not likely to be representative of the views of the population in general.[28] It is argued that because a people's jury is making an informed judgement, it is unlike a referendum, where the views of the most uninformed or ill-informed people carry equal weight.


Citizens' assemblies have been used in British Columbia and Ontario (2006) in Canada, in the Netherlands (2006), in the Republic of Ireland (2016), Poland (2016) and the United Kingdom (2019 onwards). The citizens' assemblies in Canada and the Netherlands dealt with the question of electoral system reform. In each of these examples, citizens were selected through a semi-random process that ensured an even geographic and demographic spread of participants. Participation was voluntary, invitations were sent out randomly to people listed on the electoral register inviting interested people to respond. The final participants were selected from those who responded in a manner that ensured a fair representation of people from different places and backgrounds. As part of participating in the assembly, members in the Canadian and Dutch assemblies were given introductory courses to electoral politics before receiving presentation on alternative proposals for electoral reform and deliberating on their recommendations.


In Belgium, the G1000 is a citizens initiative funded entirely by voluntary donations. It was launched during the Summer of 2011 with an online survey to identify issues citizens really cared about. More than 5,000 suggestions were put forward and ranked by thousands of citizens. After clustering of similar themes, 25 themes were put forward for a second round of voting. Next, a full day of deliberation bringing one thousand randomly selected people together took place on November 11, 2011, at Tour & Taxis in Brussels. The 1,000 target was not reached but over 700 of those who responded to invitations attended. Spread over tables with 10 people per table and after having been briefed by experts, the participants drew on proposals around the themes that emanated from the online process.

A smaller group of citizens, the G32, will gather regularly over the coming months to refine these proposals and transform them into concrete recommendations. These recommendations will be put to the rest of the country in April 2012.[29][30]


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. It is similar to juries used in modern court trial except that the subject of its deliberation is a matter of public policy, rather than law. The concept of the policy jury is closely connected with deliberative democracy or participatory models of democratic governance, and is similar to a deliberative opinion poll.

In some cases, policy juries are composed of randomly selected members of a given population. Citizens participating in a policy jury engage in a comprehensive learning and deliberation processes before settling on a conclusion or set of recommendations.

Policy juries have been used in Canada. Citizens’ Assemblies on Electoral Reform convened in British Columbia in 2004[31] and Ontario in 2006[32] used policy juries to address alternative electoral systems. Three of Ontario's Local Health Integration Networks (LHIN) have 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,[33] Central LHIN and Mississauga Halton LHIN.

British Columbia[edit]

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


The selection process of this assembly was quasi-random. One man and one woman was randomly selected from each of the British Columbia's 79 electoral districts in addition to two aboriginal members and the chair.[34] These members were selected by a civic lottery that ensured a gender balance and fair representation by age group and the geographical distribution of the population. There were three stages to the selection process: First, 15,800 invitations were mailed to random British Columbians with 200 in each constituency, which asked if they were willing to put their names into a draw for future candidacy. The names then went through two more pools of selection.

The selection process resulted in an assembly that was not very representative of the larger public insofar as the members were widely dissatisfied with BC's current electoral system from the very start, while surveys of the public indicated it to be relatively satisfied.[35]

Amy Lang noted two similarities across those who were finally selected amongst the 160 citizens: an interest in learning, especially about the political process, and a commitment to process once it has started. She writes that "this is likely to have contributed to the excellent working dynamic within the Assembly."[36]

Emphasizing the importance of representativeness in the selection process, Michael Pal wrote of the Citizens' assemblies in British Columbia and Ontario that "the requirement of an equal number of members from each electoral district resulted in Assemblies that did not reflect the actual population and may have skewed the outcome toward proposals that prioritized geographic representation."[37] Therefore, a factor like geography limited the representativeness of the final assemblies, despite the fact that it allowed for a systematized process of selection. The overall intention is to ensure that the structure of selection does not have a skewing influence on the actual deliberation in the assembly.


The assembly first went through a twelve-week "learning phase" involving presentations by experts, group discussions and access to a range of source materials. Work included a review of different electoral systems in usage 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 a total of 1,603 written submissions.[38] The members deliberated over which electoral system to recommend, and then the assembly voted on different options in three separate votes.[39]


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 B.C. 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 approval by 60% of votes and simple 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.


A total of 103 people took part in the Ontario citizen's assembly. The recommendations of the Ontario citizens' assembly were rejected in the ensuing referendum by 63% of voters, meaning the status quo remained.


Consensus conferences originated in Denmark in the 1980s and are one of the earliest attempts by policymakers to include the lay public's opinions in their decision-making through public engagement.[40] 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.”[41] Consensus conferences are generally deemed suitable for topics that are socially relevant and/or need regulation which require public support.

Participants are randomly selected from a group of citizens who are invited to apply.[41][42] Individuals who are invited are members of the lay public that have no specific knowledge of the issue at hand.[41] This citizens’ panel is chosen to be demographically representative of the public.

Members of the citizens’ panel participate in 2 preparatory weekends and are given material prepared by a communicator to gain a basic understanding of the issue at hand.[41] The panel then participates in a 4-day conference. Over the duration of the conference, the citizens’ panel participates in a Q&A session with experts, where they get opposing views. Citizens then prepare a final document containing their views, opinions, stances, and recommendations for the issue. On the final day of the conference, the panel then discusses their final document with policy- and decision-makers.



After the Irish financial crisis beginning in 2008, a citizen's assembly was among various proposals for political reform. In the 2011 general election, party manifestos included citizens' assemblies or conventions, for electoral reform (Fine Gael[43]) or constitutional reform (Fianna Fáil,[44] Labour Party,[45] Sinn Féin,[46] and the Green Party[47]). 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.[19] It met from 2012 to 2014, discussing six issues specified by the government and then two issues chosen by itself. It issued nine reports, recommending numerous constitutional amendments and other changes to statute law and legislative practice.[48] 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.[49][50][51]

The Fine Gael–independent minority government formed after the 2016 general election has committed to establishing "a Citizens' Assembly, within six months, and without participation by politicians, and with a mandate to look at a limited number of key issues over an extended time period."[52] The Citizens' Assembly was formally established in July 2016.[20]


Held in 2006 and composed of 143 randomly-selected Dutch citizens, the Burgerforum Kiesstelsel was tasked with examining options for electoral reform in the Netherlands. On December 14, 2006, the Burgerforum presented its final report to a minister of the outgoing People's Party (VVD), recommending changes to the electoral system. A response to the report was not delivered until April 2008, when it was rejected by the government of the then ruling coalition.[53] After more than a decade, in 2020, consultation was started on a bill that would implement the electoral reform as suggested by the Burgerforum Kiesstelsel.[54]


Beginning in July 2016 after the municipal response to flooding was deemed inadequate by many citizens, in Gdańsk, Poland citizen's assemblies comprising approximately 60 randomly-selected residents have made binding decisions to address major problems.[55] The meetings of the citizen's assembly are calm and even described as enjoyable. Names from the city's voter rolls are selected randomly by a computer but the membership is balanced according to demographic and geographic factors, such as education-level completed, sex and district, to represent a cross-section of the population. In this way, for example, the citizen's assembly has the same percentage of senior citizens as the city has. The citizen's assembly meets for several days, hears testimony from experts, asks questions and deliberates in small groups before rendering its binding policy decision.[55]

United Kingdom[edit]

In 2019 the British government announced the UK Climate Assembly,[56] with 108 citizens aiming to deliberate over how the UK will reach its current net-zero emissions by 2050 target.[22] 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[57] to address 3 questions:[58]

  • 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 citizen's assemblies on climate change to be used by governments to make decisions on climate and environmental justice. In the UK, Extinction Rebellion's third demand is: "government must create and be led by the decisions of a citizens' assembly on climate and ecological justice."[59] The central aim of the political party Burning Pink is to replace the British government with citizens' assemblies.[60]

United States[edit]


A Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) is an Oregon's version of citizens' assembly and is a form of deliberative democracy. A panel of citizens meets to deliberate on a ballot initiative or referendum that voters in the same jurisdiction (such as a city, state, province, or country) will be deciding in an upcoming election. The panelists are chosen by sortition through means such as random sampling and stratified sampling to be demographically representative of the relevant population.[61] To ensure that the panel is a manageable size for face-to-face deliberation, a CIR caps the number of participants at around two dozen. They are often paid for their time and travel so that the broadest possible range of citizens can participate.[62] To date, only the state of Oregon has passed a law to enact a permanent version of the CIR.[63] The states of Colorado, Arizona, and Massachusetts have conducted pilot tests of the CIR.[64][65][66] Another American deliberative forum of randomly selected citizens was California Speaks. It consisted out of 3,500 people representing all segments of the population.

CIR Process[edit]

The operations of a CIR are typically assisted by a moderator who is trained to ensure that all panelists engage in the deliberations. Over the course of a few days, the panelists not only deliberate among themselves but also question policy experts and advocates on both sides of the initiative. The panelists write a statement describing their deliberations in a form that can be publicized though means such as including it in the voter's pamphlet. This statement summarizes what the panelists believed were the best arguments pro and con, and it lists the number of panelists who recommended voting both for and against the initiative.[63]

CIR Purposes[edit]

Consistent with other forms of deliberative democracy, a CIR tries to strengthen the quality and impact of the public voice in elections and government decisions.[67] The CIR addresses specific concerns about initiative campaigns where voters often receive little information at all, or else what they hear—for example, from paid advertisements—is biased or conflicting.[68] Under a CIR, voters learn what a representative body of citizens thought about the initiative after studying it carefully and deliberating among themselves.

CIR Evaluation[edit]

Academic research shows that the panelists in the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review have achieved high-quality deliberation.[69] Voters became aware of those deliberations through the voters’ pamphlet and found the panelists’ statement to be helpful to their decisions, and voter knowledge about the initiatives increased as a result.[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 citizens' assembly to take place in America.[72]  The Assembly took place in the Winter of 2021, bringing 77 randomly selected citizens together to discuss climate change.[73][74] The assembly was entirely virtual, and their fundamental question was: "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 Method[edit]

The organizers sought to get 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 brought and boiled down 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 consisted of self-selected participants.[74]

For the actual assembly itself, 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 of the assembly "attempted to break down barriers" to participation by providing technology (i.e laptops and microphones) as well as childcare to whoever needed them.[74][76] Each participant was also paid $500 after the end of the Assembly.[74]


In the first two months of 2021, Assembly members attended seven public "Learning Sessions" which brought both experts and affected parties in regards to climate change. The first and last sessions were general overviews, while other sessions went into greater detail around one impact/sub-field of climate change, such as the economics relating to climate change's effects and potential solutions.  There were five deliberative sessions in which the participants determined “priority principles” and then crafted recommendations that addressed these principles.[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 also 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 did not have legislative powers – it could only submit recommendations to the State Legislature, which had no obligation beyond consideration. However, several state representatives (Rep. Jake Fey, Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon, Rep. Zack Hudgins, Rep. Steve Kirby, and Rep. Cindy Ryu) expressed their support for the assembly in an op-ed for the Herald Net, pointing to the examples of climate assemblies set in the UK and France. They wrote that the assembly was an opportunity "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] Although all the representatives above are Democrats, support came from Republican representatives as well.[77]

Proposed citizens' assemblies[edit]

In the United Kingdom, following a series of public scandals in 2001, a petition campaign has begun to form a people's jury of 1,000 people to investigate issues around media ownership, the financial sector, MP selections and accountability and other matters.[79]

Also in the United Kingdom, in 2018, the Extinction Rebellion movement asked for a citizens' assembly to oversee the changes for a rapid decarbonisation of the economy.[80]

Some political reformers have proposed establishing citizens' assemblies as permanent, elected bodies. Typically, these assemblies are proposed to consist of up to several thousand members elected at the same time as the traditional legislature. Due to the proposed size it is typically envisioned that such an assembly would conduct most of its business online, with their main power being the ability to approve or veto bills passed by the legislature.[citation needed]

In 2019, the ongoing Brexit crisis in the United Kingdom renewed propositions for citizens' assemblies.[81] As a method by which to break parliamentary deadlock on the issue, citizens' assembles present a new forum in which to take on the situation. Neal Lawson, chair of pressure group Compass, has proposed citizens' assemblies made up of 500 randomly selected citizens that would deliberate on withdrawal from the European Union for several months.[82]

While a citizens assembly is based on similar principles to those of ancient Athenian democracy, there is still difficulty in convincing the entire electorate that a deliberative body established through sortition is representative. There is a powerful and habitual conceptual connection between elections and democracy. Indeed, 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.[83] 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 citizens' assemblies in the Republic of Ireland.[83]


Main proponents of citizens' assemblies believe that the assemblies successfully breach the border of direct democracy by accomplishing two of the three general requirements for direct democracy, which are mass representation, deliberation, and equity. It permits open and public deliberation about future legislation, albeit among a small but genuinely representative body of citizens; and it permits ratification or endorsement of legislation by the whole electorate. Democratic values and superior results are also additional potential advantages of these institutions.

Representative and inclusive[edit]

Random lotteries have been explored as alternative to elections on many grounds, namely that it allows for more accurate representation and inclusivity.[17] It is thought that a randomly selected group of people comes to embody the "median voter." In tandem with the deliberative process, which involves the education of the participants, the citizens in assemblies are supposed to be a sample of the educated common person.[14] Selection by lot undermines the elitist aspect of elections. In order to be elected, one typically requires certain privileges, like access to education, money, etc. Elections are intended to create a skilled class of people best apt to govern. Though elected legislators generally have more experience or governing competence, they also tend to represent a small cross-section of the population. Representative democracies have been criticized for not actually being representative at all.[10] The lack of female and minority representation in Congress despite their demographic makeup is often cited as an example. Money in particular is argued to have a tremendous role in the outcome of elections. Scholars like Lawrence Lessig have argued that elections are dominated by money and wealth, citing examples like Citizens United v. FEC. When random selection is used alongside statistical analysis, an accurate representation of the public can be attained regardless of wealth, privilege, sexuality, gender, or race.[13] Since the selection process of citizens' assemblies is only quasi-random, due to self-selection and minority quotas, the lack of minority representation is additionally corrected, which proponents claim accounts for the potential exclusion of marginalized communities.[15]

Cognitive diversity[edit]

By virtue of employing random selection, citizens' assemblies allow for increased cognitive diversity, otherwise understood as a diversity of problem-solving methods or ways of seeing and interpreting the world. The random selection of citizens' assemblies allows for extensive and statistically representative cognitive diversity unlike elected representatives, who are typically characterized by uniform problem-solving methods.[84] In a cognitively diverse setting, the people present are not the best-performing or most skilled agents, which citizens' assemblies are often criticized for.[13][84] Despite this concern, studies have been published, which contend that cognitively diverse groups produce better results than cognitively homogenous groups. A study conducted by Lu Hong and Scott Page posits that cognitive diversity is an important element of effective problem solving. They find in their research that when they selected two problem-solving teams from a diverse population of intelligent agents, the team of randomly selected agents outperformed the team of the "best-performing" agents.[14][84] Deliberation amongst a diverse group can produce better results since unique perspectives and interpretations generally enhance analysis of an issue.[84][85] These results demonstrate that when selecting problem-solving groups, it may be more important to maximize cognitive diversity over individual competence. For example, scholar Helene Landemore argues that the random selection of representatives rather than election results in increased efficacy, diversity and inclusivity.[84] In fact, John Stuart 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." [86]


The benefits of deliberation have been explored as a superior form of democracy. Initiatives like Deliberative polling or more broadly Deliberative democracy aim to harness the benefits of deliberation to produce better understanding and resolution of important issues.[87][88] Citizens' assemblies are intended to be a genuine public forum for deliberation, in which the participants cannot be easily captured by special interest.[17][40] Scholars like James Fishkin, who spearheaded deliberative polling, claim that deliberation promotes better problem-solving by educating and actively engaging participants.[89][90][91] It is believed the deliberation additionally removes faction by emphasizing resolution over partisanship.[13][89] Additionally, other citizens who were not selected as members of these assemblies have tended to perceive those chosen as both technical experts in the field and as a group of "ordinary" citizens like themselves. As happened in British Columbia, these features encouraged voter familiarity with the actions and objectives of the Citizen's assembly itself.[92]

Common interest[edit]

Citizens' Assemblies exclude elected politicians from making certain kinds of decisions. Electoral reform, redistricting, campaign finance law, and the regulation of political speech are not well managed by self-interested politicians.[15] The assemblies permit the people to decide what to do on a specific issue where politicians had self-serving interests and could not be trusted to decide dispassionately: the choice of the electoral rules by which they themselves would compete for office.[13][14] According to proponents such as James Fearon, another strength of deliberative democratic models is that they tend, more than any other model, to generate ideal conditions of impartiality, rationality and knowledge of the relevant facts. The more these conditions are fulfilled, the greater the likelihood that the decisions reached are morally correct. Deliberative democracy has thus an epistemic value: it allows participants to deduce what is morally correct.[93] This view has been prominently held by Carlos Nino.[94]


Several experts posit that selection by sortition excludes the likelihood of over-representation of "special interests", whether business, labor, or social issues.[13][14] It was credible to expect, therefore, that this group would be able to consider the specific issues presented to it in a reasonably neutral and representative way.[15] Due to term limits and the unpredictable nature of participants, corruption becomes less likely.[17]


Outspoken citizens dominate[edit]

Conversational dynamics are important to successful consensus conferences. More outspoken citizens tend to dominate the conversation. This can potentially be avoided with a well-trained facilitator. This brings up the question of how to evaluate facilitators, an area that has not been actively researched.

Disconnect between deliberation and policy[edit]

Disconnect between public participation methods and policy. Studies have shown that there is a gap between public deliberation and policy decisions.[40]

Widening knowledge gaps[edit]

Public meetings may have the unintended consequence of widening knowledge gaps. The disparities in higher rates of learning among the information-rich compared to the information-poor may be increased by consensus conferences.[40] This can be attributed to (i) the critique of self-selection, where individuals who are most likely to participate in public meetings tend to be more interested in politics and better educated, and (ii) more outspoken individuals dominating the conversation.

Masking differences[edit]

Potential to mask differences in opinions. The goal of consensus conferences is for members of the lay audience to deliberate and reach a consensus over a particular issue. However, this need to reach a consensus can have the unintended side-effect of masking differences in opinion, particularly if these individuals are less outspoken.[95]

Lack of order[edit]

Some critics contest that representative government is necessary for order, and that expanding the scope of decision making reduces this effect. For example, John Zaller argues that the mass public has almost no attitudes about the public issues and policies. Attendance is low.

Incompetence of the common individual[edit]

A central criticism of the citizens' assembly model and random selection more generally is that the members of the assembly are incompetent when it comes to governing. The "average citizen" in a country, some argue, is unequipped to lead, especially since the person would be of average intelligence and competence.[14] Though cognitive diversity and deliberation may make for better problem-solving, some argue problem solving is not all there is to politics and that is where the citizens' assembly fails. Arbitrating and compromising between competing interests and incommensurable values is certainly also a part of representatives' tasks.

The citizens’ panel may not reflect lay audiences’ views. At what point in this process do the lay members of the citizens’ panel become experts themselves? Studies have shown that there are gaps between lay audiences’ initial opinions and their views after they have been given more information.[95]

Briefing materials[edit]

Some critics would say it is hard to ensure that briefing materials provided to participants are balanced and accurate. It is suggested that an advisory committee with a wide range of people are to be constituted; however, it can be challenging to obtain a balanced advisory committee at the first place.[96] In this sense, it gives room for a biased and/or incomplete presentation of information. In case of Citizens' Review Initiative, informing the voting public of what the panellists recommended, rather than just summarizing the pro and con arguments that panellists found most persuasive, may short-circuit voters’ own deliberations by allowing them to simply adopt the panellists’ recommendation.[97]


Citizens' assemblies require a lot of time, energy and fiscal support to occur. Between the three or more steps of the selection process, the actual deliberative sequence, and then decision-making, citizens' assemblies can take years of preparation to come to fruition. In addition, to the extensive time necessary to hold a citizens' assembly, there are also excessive pecuniary costs that must go into funding the venue, finding willing experts, and compensating the participants.

Lack of accountability[edit]

Scholars have emphasized the lack of accountability of citizens' assembly, as they do not provide the classical mechanisms of accountability of the electoral system that are "re-election or removal for office."[98]

Systemic destabilization[edit]

According to Mark E. Warren and John Gastil, in the British Columbia case of a citizens' assembly, other British Columbia citizens should have been able to "treat it as a facilitative trustee (a trusted information and decision proxy)."[99] The participating citizens essentially become informal experts in the topics discussed in the assembly, allowing them to act as an extension of the larger public. However, the insertion of the citizens' assembly drew away much of the previous deliberative importance political parties such as the Green Party had once held.

The introduction of new deliberative models such as in this case had the effect of undermining the deliberative trust that parties and advocacy groups in the British Columbia system had invested in significantly to earn. While Jane Mansbridge acknowledges such a destabilization could be a necessary shock for a democratic system, it could also "undermine the epistemic, ethical, and democratic functions of the whole."[23]

Group polarization[edit]

Another concern that is more broadly related to deliberation and has thus been applied to deliberative democratic institutions such as citizens' assemblies is that of group polarization. The concept is attributed to Cass Sunstein, who wrote "In a striking empirical regularity, 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."[100] James Fishkin has responded that the issue is one of structure for deliberative democratic institutions. Resources such as briefing materials and expert testimony are meant to provide balanced views of the issue(s) up for deliberation, and small group deliberation, particularly with final voting on secret ballots, are intended to control against social comparison.[91] Consensus conferences can have the opposite effect. These conferences 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.[40]



Citizens' assemblies requires those randomly sampled to gather at a single place to discuss the targeted issue(s). Those events are typically one to three days while online deliberations can take up to four to five weeks.[89] Even though scientific random sampling are used and each person has an equal chance of being selected, not every selected individual will have the time and interest to join those events. Citizens are self-selected. Those who attend are significantly different than those who do not.[101]

In real-world settings, attendance is low and highly selective, and there can be self-selection biases.[40] In the case of Fishkin's "Europe in one room project," Data supports such concern as only 300 out of 869 respondents took up the invitation to participate in actual deliberative meetings.[102] What is more important is that those who attended and those who did not differed significantly,[103] and some groups in society are found to be significantly more likely to attend public meetings than others.[104] In general, those who participate tend to be those highly motivated and opinionated.[40] This could be problematic because both group dynamics and personalities of participants can play an important role in producing different outcomes of discussions.[103][105]


There has been wide-ranging discussion about whether mini-publics undermine democracy by removing mass-representation, as the chance of being selected for an assembly is very small. When people are called to vote, they are given the opportunity to interact with the government and with the law. Elections and voting are an important moment of exercising 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.

Christina Lafont, for example, argues that the use of mini-publics would undermine deliberation. She argues that this is because mini-publics 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."[106] Fishkin argues in turn that this model is not elite because it uses ordinary citizens who are representative of the population (i.e, a "mirror" of the population.) Lafont rejects the mirror 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." [106]

Hélène Landemore responds to Lafont by arguing that while her concerns of a secretive mini-public are valid, it is impossible to have large-scale discourse, let alone improve it.[107] Landemore offers a solution to the question of political legitimacy by making the mini-publics "as 'open' to the larger public as possible."[107] For example, their decisions could be authorized by citizens via a referendum.

James Fishkin furthers the concern of mass-deliberation being neglected by mini-publics in his identification of a trilemma between the ideas of political equality, deliberation, and participation.[91] In a body such as a mini-public, political equality is achieved through a random and ideally representative selection process, and deliberation is also achieved in the actions of the mini-public. However, since the body is only made up of a randomly-selected subset of the population, it does not achieve the goal of participation on a broad scale.

Fishkin's attempt to solve the trilemma so posed is to think beyond mini-publics, which are deliberative microcosms, to consider an entire deliberative society, which would constitute a deliberative macrocosm. He sees mini-publics as experiments by which to conceptualize the implementation of deliberation on a macro-scale later on down the line.[91]

See also[edit]


  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 requires |journal= (help)
  4. ^ a b 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.
  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". 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. ^ 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.
  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 h Delannoi, Gil and Oliver Dowlen (2010). Sortition: Theory and Practice. Imprint Academic. ISBN 978-1845401993.
  15. ^ a b c d e 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. ^ a b c d Barnett, Anthony and Peter Carty (2008). The Athenian Option: Radical Reform for the House of Lords.
  18. ^ "What Are Citizens' Assemblies?". Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  19. ^ a b "Convention on the Constitution". Ireland: Constitutional Convention. Archived from the original on 18 January 2018. Retrieved 1 June 2016.
  20. ^ a b Power, Elaine (27 July 2016). "Judge Mary Laffoy to chair Citizens' Assembly on the 8th Amendment". Retrieved 27 July 2016.
  21. ^ "Assembly Members | Citizens Assembly". Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  22. ^ a b "Climate Assembly UK - Climate Assembly UK". Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  23. ^ a b Deliberative systems : deliberative democracy at the large scale. Parkinson, John. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. 2012. ISBN 9781107025394. OCLC 802706974.CS1 maint: others (link)
  24. ^ Rawls, John (2005). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. ISBN 0674017722. OCLC 474723683.
  25. ^ Dahl, Robert A. (1982). Dilemmas of pluralist democracy : autonomy vs. control. New Haven: Yale University Press. ISBN 0585348790. OCLC 47010959.
  26. ^ 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.
  27. ^ De Schutter, Olivier (March 2011). "Report: Agroecology and the right to food". Retrieved 2020-07-02.
  28. ^ Tom Wakeford (2002). "Citizens Juries: a radical alternative for social research". Social Research Update 37. Department of Sociology, University of Surrey. Retrieved 28 December 2011.
  29. ^ "G100". Retrieved 2 January 2012.
  30. ^ "Et si on avait essayé le G1000?". Le Soir. 29 November 2011. Retrieved 2 January 2012.
  31. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2005-09-24. Retrieved 2005-10-09.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  32. ^
  33. ^
  34. ^ Elections BC (May 17, 2005). Report of the Chief Election Officer: 38th Provincial Election/2005 Referendum on Electoral Reform (PDF). p. 34.
  35. ^ Blais, André; Kenneth Carty; Patrick Fournier (2005)
  36. ^ 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.
  37. ^ 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.
  38. ^ Elections BC (May 17, 2005). Report of the Chief Election Officer: 38th Provincial Election/2005 Referendum on Electoral Reform (PDF). p. 34.
  39. ^ 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.
  40. ^ a b c d e f g 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.
  41. ^ a b c d Danish Board of Technology (2006). "The consensus conference". Archived from the original on 16 August 2011. Retrieved 13 November 2011.
  42. ^ 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 2021-01-09). ISSN 0963-6625.CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2021 (link)
  43. ^ "Fine Gael Manifesto" (PDF). RTÉ. 2011. p. 7. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
  44. ^ "Real Plan Better Future; Fianna Fáil manifesto 2011" (PDF). RTÉ. 2011. p. 31. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
  45. ^ "Labour's Manifesto 2011" (PDF). RTÉ. 2011. p. 46. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
  46. ^ "Sinn Féin General Election Manifesto 2011" (PDF). RTÉ. p. 33. Archived from the original (PDF) on 21 February 2011. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
  47. ^ "Playing to Our Strengths: Green Party Manifesto 2011" (PDF). RTÉ. p. 13. Archived from the original (PDF) on 7 March 2012. Retrieved 9 April 2012.
  48. ^ Arnold, Tom (1 April 2014). "Inside the Convention on the Constitution". The Irish Times. Retrieved 1 April 2014.
  49. ^ O'Toole, Fintan (3 March 2015). "How hopes raised by the Constitutional Convention were dashed". The Irish Times. Retrieved 20 March 2015.
  50. ^ Farrell, David (17 March 2015). "Constitutional Convention 'brand' is in jeopardy". The Irish Times. Retrieved 20 March 2015.
  51. ^ McGee, Harry (26 January 2015). "Only two proposals for Constitution referendum". The Irish Times. Retrieved 28 January 2015.
  52. ^ "A Programme for a Partnership Government" (PDF). Government of Ireland. 11 May 2016. p. 153. Retrieved 1 June 2016.
  53. ^ Patrick Fournier et al., "When Citizens Decide: Lessons from Citizen Assemblies on Electoral Reform"
  54. ^ "Consultatie Wetsvoorstel Burgerforum kiesstelsel". Dutch government. 15 December 2020. Retrieved 18 December 2020.
  55. ^ a b Resilience, 22 Nov. 2017, post by Tin Gazivoda, "Solutions: How the Poles Are Making Democracy Work Again in Gdansk,"
  56. ^ "Parliament sends 30,000 invitations for citizens' assembly on climate change - News from Parliament". UK Parliament. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  57. ^ "Weekend Content | Citizens Assembly". Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  58. ^ "Welcome to the Citizens' Assembly of Scotland | Citizens Assembly". Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  59. ^ "Citizens' Assembly". Extinction Rebellion. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
  60. ^ Taylor, Diane (25 June 2020). "Extinction Rebellion activists launch UK Beyond Politics party by stealing food". The Guardian. Retrieved 3 December 2020.
  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. ^
  63. ^ a b Robert Richards, “Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review” Archived 2017-04-25 at the Wayback Machine
  64. ^
  65. ^ "Archived copy". Archived from the original on 2015-01-03. Retrieved 2017-07-21.CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  66. ^
  67. ^
  68. ^ John Gastil, “Beyond Endorsements and Partisan Cues: Given Voters Viable Alternaties to Unreliable Cognitive Shortcuts”
  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”
  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”
  71. ^ Katherine R. Knobloch and John Gastil, “Civic (Re)socialisation: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation”
  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". 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. ^ Lawson, Neal; Simms, Andrew (31 July 2010), A People's Jury of a Thousand Angry Citizens, Guardian
  80. ^ Matthew Taylor and Damien Gayle (17 November 2018). "Thousands gather to block London bridges in climate rebellion". The Guardian. Retrieved 17 November 2018.
  81. ^ correspondent, Jamie Grierson Home affairs (2019-01-09). "What is a citizens' assembly, and what has it got to do with Brexit?". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 2019-03-05.
  82. ^ "Brexit Citizens Assembly: rising to the United Kingdom's crisis in democracy". openDemocracy. Retrieved 2019-03-05.
  83. ^ a b RSA. "New survey highlights the pros and cons of a citizens' assembly on Brexit - RSA". Retrieved 2019-03-20.
  84. ^ 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.
  85. ^ 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.
  86. ^ Mills, John Stuart (1875). Considerations on Representative Government. Henry Holt and Company.
  87. ^ Fishkin, James (2009). When the People Speak. Oxford UP.
  88. ^ Fishkin, James S. "Deliberative Polling: Executive Summary". CDD. Retrieved 10 November 2012.
  89. ^ 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.
  90. ^ "Deliberative Polling: Toward a Better-Informed Democracy" Stanford University, Center for Deliberative Democracy
  91. ^ a b c d S., Fishkin, James (2018). Democracy when the people are thinking : revitalizing our politics through public deliberation (First editon ed.). Oxford, United Kingdom. ISBN 9780198820291. OCLC 1006802546.
  92. ^ 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
  93. ^ Elster, Jon (1998). Chapter 2 (essay by Fearon). Missing or empty |title= (help)CS1 maint: location (link)
  94. ^ Nino, Carlos (1996). Missing or empty |title= (help)
  95. ^ a b 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.
  96. ^ Siu, Alice. "Deliberative polling". CIVICUS. Archived from the original on 30 June 2010. Retrieved 12 November 2012.
  97. ^ 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.
  98. ^ 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.)
  99. ^ 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.
  100. ^ Sunstein, Cass R. (1999). "The Law of Group Polarization". SSRN Working Paper Series. doi:10.2139/ssrn.199668. ISSN 1556-5068. S2CID 145439741.
  101. ^ Fishkin, J. S. (1996). "Bringing deliberation to democracy". Public Perspective. 7: 1–14.
  102. ^ Fishkin, J. S. (1995). The voice of the people. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  103. ^ 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.
  104. ^ 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.
  105. ^ Admir, J. G. (1996). "The Hawthorne effect is a common artifact in social research". Public Perspective. 7: 14–16.
  106. ^ 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.
  107. ^ a b Landemore, Hélène (2020). Open Democracy: Reinventing Popular Rule for the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press. pp. 115–116.

External links[edit]