What Could Citizens’ Assemblies Do for American Politics?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Nick Romeo: “Last July, an unusual letter arrived at Kathryn Kundmueller’s mobile home, in central Oregon. It invited her to enter a lottery that would select thirty residents of Deschutes County to deliberate for five days on youth homelessness—a visible and contentious issue in an area where the population and cost of living have spiked in recent years. Those chosen would be paid for their time—almost five hundred dollars—and asked to develop specific policy recommendations.

Kundmueller was being invited to join what is known as a citizens’ assembly. These gatherings do what most democracies only pretend to: trust normal people to make decisions on difficult policy questions. Many citizens’ assemblies follow a basic template. They impanel a random but representative cross-section of a population, give them high-quality information on a topic, and ask them to work together to reach a decision. In Europe, such groups have helped spur reform of the Irish constitution in order to legalize abortion, guided an Austrian pharmaceutical heiress on how to give away her wealth, and become a regular part of government in Paris and Belgium. Though still rare in America, the model reflects the striking idea that fundamental problems of politics—polarization, apathy, manipulation by special interests—can be transformed through radically direct democracy.

Kundmueller, who is generally frustrated by politics, was intrigued by the letter. She liked the prospect of helping to shape local policy, and the topic of housing insecurity had a particular resonance for her. As a teen-ager, following a falling-out with her father, she spent months bouncing between friends’ couches in Vermont. When she moved across the country to San Jose, after college, she lived in her car for a time while she searched for a stable job. She worked in finance but became disillusioned; now in her early forties, she ran a small housecleaning business. She still thought about living in a van and renting out her mobile home to save money…(More)”.

Sortition: Past and Present

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Introduction to the Journal of Sortition: “Since ancient times sortition (random selection by lot) has been used both to distribute political office and as a general prophylactic against factionalism and corruption in societies as diverse as classical-era Athens and the Most Serene Republic of Venice. Lotteries have also been employed for the allocation of scarce goods such as social housing and school places to eliminate bias and ensure just distribution, along with drawing lots in circumstances where unpopular tasks or tragic choices are involved (as some situations are beyond rational human decision-making). More recently, developments in public opinion polling using random sampling have led to the proliferation of citizens’ assemblies selected by lot. Some activists have even proposed such bodies as an alternative to elected representatives. The Journal of Sortition benefits from an editorial board with a wide range of expertise and perspectives in this area. In this introduction to the first issue, we have invited our editors to explain why they are interested in sortition, and to outline the benefits (and pitfalls) of the recent explosion of interest in the topic…(More)”.

The People Say

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “The People Say is an online research hub that features first-hand insights from older adults and caregivers on the issues most important to them, as well as feedback from experts on policies affecting older adults. 

This project particularly focuses on the experiences of communities often under-consulted in policymaking, including older adults of color, those who are low income, and/or those who live in rural areas where healthcare isn’t easily accessible. The People Say is funded by The SCAN Foundation and developed by researchers and designers at the Public Policy Lab.

We believe that effective policymaking listens to most-affected communities—but policies and systems that serve older adults are typically formed with little to no input from older adults themselves. We hope The People Say will help policymakers hear the voices of older adults when shaping policy…(More)”

In the hands of a few: Disaster recovery committee networks

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Timothy Fraser, Daniel P. Aldrich, Andrew Small and Andrew Littlejohn: “When disaster strikes, urban planners often rely on feedback and guidance from committees of officials, residents, and interest groups when crafting reconstruction policy. Focusing on recovery planning committees after Japan’s 2011 earthquake, tsunami, and nuclear disasters, we compile and analyze a dataset on committee membership patterns across 39 committees with 657 members. Using descriptive statistics and social network analysis, we examine 1) how community representation through membership varied among committees, and 2) in what ways did committees share members, interlinking members from certain interests groups. This study finds that community representation varies considerably among committees, negatively related to the prevalence of experts, bureaucrats, and business interests. Committee membership overlap occurred heavily along geographic boundaries, bridged by engineers and government officials. Engineers and government bureaucrats also tend to be connected to more members of the committee network than community representatives, giving them prized positions to disseminate ideas about best practices in recovery. This study underscores the importance of diversity and community representation in disaster recovery planning to facilitate equal participation, information access, and policy implementation across communities…(More)”.

Social licence for health data

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Evidence Brief by NSW Government: “Social licence, otherwise referred to as social licence to operate, refers to an approval or consensus from the society members or the community for the users, either as a public or private enterprise or individual, to use their health data as desired or accepted under certain conditions. Social licence is a dynamic and fluid concept and is subject to change over time often influenced by societal and contextual factors.
The social licence is usually indicated through ongoing engagement and negotiations with the public and is not a contract with strict terms and conditions. It is, rather, a moral and ethical responsibility assumed by the data users based on trust and legitimacy, It supplements the techno-legal mechanisms to regulate the use of data.
For example, through public engagement, certain values and principles can emerge as pertinent to public support for using their data. Similarly, the public may view certain activities relating to their data use as acceptable and beneficial, implying their permission for certain activities or usecase scenarios. Internationally, although not always explicitly referred to as a social licence, the most common approach to establishing public trust and support and identifying common grounds or agreements on acceptable practices for use of data is through public engagement. Engagement methods and mechanisms for gaining public perspectives vary across countries (Table 1).
− Canada – Health Data Research Network Canada reports on social licence for uses of health data, based on deliberative discussions with 20 experienced public and patient advisors. The output is a list of agreements and disagreements on what uses and users of health data have social licence.
− New Zealand – In 2022, the Ministry of Health commissioned a survey on public perceptions on use of personal health information. This report identified conditions under which the public supports the re-use of their data…(More)”.

Online consent: how much do we need to know?

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Bartlomiej Chomanski & Lode Lauwaert: “When you visit a website and click a button that says, ‘I agree to these terms’—do you really agree? Many scholars who consider this question (Solove 2013; Barocas & Nissenbaum 2014; Hull 2015; Pascalev 2017; Yeung 2017; Becker 2019; Zuboff 2019; Andreotta et al. 2022; Wolmarans and Vorhoeve 2022) would tend to answer ‘no’—or, at the very least, they would deem your agreement normatively deficient. The reasoning behind that conclusion is in large part driven by the claim that when most people click ‘I agree’ when visiting online websites and platforms, they do not really know what they are agreeing to. Their lack of knowledge about the privacy policy and other terms of the online agreements thus makes their consent problematic in morally salient ways.

We argue that this prevailing view is wrong. Uninformed consent to online terms and conditions (what we will call, for short, ‘online consent’) is less ethically problematic than many scholars suppose. Indeed, we argue that uninformed online consent preceded by the legitimate exercise of the right not to know (RNTK, to be explained below) is prima facie valid and does not appear normatively deficient in other ways, despite being uninformed.

The paper proceeds as follows. In Sect. 2, we make more precise the concept of online consent and summarize the case against it, as presented in the literature. In Sect. 3 we explain the arguments for the RNTK in bioethics and show that analogous reasoning leads to endorsing the RNTK in online contexts. In Sect. 4, we demonstrate that the appeal to the RNTK helps defuse the critics’ arguments against online consent. Section 5 concludes: online consent is valid (with caveats, to be explored in what follows)…(More)”

Civic Engagement & Policymaking Toolkit

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

About: “This toolkit serves as a guide for science centers and museums and other science engagement organizations to thoughtfully identify and implement ways to nurture civic experiences like these across their work or deepen ongoing civic initiatives for meaningful change within their communities…

This toolkit outlines a Community Science Approach, Civic Engagement & Policymaking, where science and technology are factors in collective civic action and policy decisions to meet community goals. It includes:

  • Guidance for your team on how to get started with this work,
  • An overview of what Civic Engagement & Policymaking as a Community Science Approach can entail,
  • Descriptions of four roles your organization can play to authentically engage with communities on civic priorities,
  • Examples of real collaborations between science engagement organizations and their partners that advance community priorities,
  • Tools, guides, and other resources to help you prepare for new civic engagement efforts and/or expand or deepen existing civic engagement efforts…(More)”.

What AI Can’t Do for Democracy

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Essay by Daniel Berliner: “In short, there is increasing optimism among both theorists and practitioners over the potential for technology-enabled civic engagement to rejuvenate or deepen democracy. Is this optimism justified?

The answer depends on how we think about what civic engagement can do. Political representatives are often unresponsive to the preferences of ordinary people. Their misperceptions of public needs and preferences are partly to blame, but the sources of democratic dysfunction are much deeper and more structural than information alone. Working to ensure many more “citizens’ voices are truly heard” will thus do little to improve government responsiveness in contexts where the distribution of power means that policymakers have no incentive to do what citizens say. And as some critics have argued, it can even distract from recognizing and remedying other problems, creating a veneer of legitimacy—what health policy expert Sherry Arnstein once famously derided as mere “window dressing.”

Still, there are plenty of cases where contributions from citizens can highlight new problems that need addressing, new perspectives by which issues are understood, and new ideas for solving public problems—from administrative agencies seeking public input to city governments seeking to resolve resident complaints and citizens’ assemblies deliberating on climate policy. But even in these and other contexts, there is reason to doubt AI’s usefulness across the board. The possibilities of AI for civic engagement depend crucially on what exactly it is that policymakers want to learn from the public. For some types of learning, applications of AI can make major contributions to enhance the efficiency and efficacy of information processing. For others, there is no getting around the fundamental needs for human attention and context-specific knowledge in order to adequately make sense of public voices. We need to better understand these differences to avoid wasting resources on tools that might not deliver useful information…(More)”.

Engaging publics in science: a practical typology

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Paper by Heather Douglas et al: “Public engagement with science has become a prominent area of research and effort for democratizing science. In the fall of 2020, we held an online conference, Public Engagement with Science: Defining and Measuring Success, to address questions of how to do public engagement well. The conference was organized around conceptualizations of the publics engaged, with attendant epistemic, ethical, and political valences. We present here the typology of publics we used (volunteer, representative sample, stakeholder, and community publics), discuss the differences among those publics and what those differences mean for practice, and situate this typology within the existing work on public engagement with science. We then provide an overview of the essays published in this journal arising from the conference which provides a window into the rich work presented at the event…(More)”.

Mini-publics and the public: challenges and opportunities

Curated on Posted on by Stefaan Verhulst

Conversation between Sarah Castell and Stephen Elstub: “…there’s a real problem here: the public are only going to get to know about a mini-public if it gets media coverage, but the media will only cover it if it makes an impact. But it’s more likely to make an impact if the public are aware of it. That’s a tension that mini-publics need to overcome, because it’s important that they reach out to the public. Ultimately it doesn’t matter how inclusive the recruitment is and how well it’s done. It doesn’t matter how well designed the process is. It is still a small number of people involved, so we want mini-publics to be able to influence public opinion and stimulate public debate. And if they can do that, then it’s more likely to affect elite opinion and debate as well, and possibly policy.

One more thing is that, people in power aren’t in the habit of sharing power. And that’s why it’s very difficult. I think the politicians are mainly motivated around this because they hope it’s going to look good to the electorate and get them some votes, but they are also worried about low levels of trust in society and what the ramifications of that might be. But in general, people in power don’t give it away very easily…

Part of the problem is that a lot of the research around public views on deliberative processes was done through experiments. It is useful, but it doesn’t quite tell us what will happen when mini-publics are communicated to the public in the messy real public sphere. Previously, there just weren’t that many well-known cases that we could actually do field research on. But that is starting to change.

There’s also more interdisciplinary work needed in this area. We need to improve how communication strategies around citizens’ assembly are done – there must be work that’s relevant in political communication studies and other fields who have this kind of insight…(More)”.