Talk:Citizens' assembly

= Citizen’s Assembly Article (Citizens’ assembly) : =

Untitled
Citizens' assembly is a body formed from the citizens of a modern state to deliberate on an issue or issues of national importance. Typically, the membership of a citizens' assembly is randomly selected, as in other forms of sortition. 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. In many cases, the state will require these proposals to be accepted by the general public through a referendum before becoming law.

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. Citizens' assemblies have been used in 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 on-going Le G1000 in Belgium or the 2011 We the Citizens initiative in Ireland.]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Msimardhalm.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2019 and 24 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nolanjc97. Peer reviewers: Minseungyoo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2021 and 6 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rkm22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Selection
A crucial component of Citizens’ Assemblies, random selection is used to promote political equality and inclusiveness in the Assembly. Unlike elections, which many claim elects elite, selection by lot permits true representation of any respective community. Random lotteries have become an alternative to elections on the grounds of equality, cost efficiency, and representativeness.The selection of participants in Citizens’ Assemblies aspires to be completely random but is actually only nearly random due to the additional variable of self-selection and contrived over-representation of minorities.[1] The use of lot in governance has historic significance and was actually famously implemented in the Athenian democracy and various European communities to assist in governance.

Size
Statistical Strengths

Functions
Could be anything, no apriori limits

Process

 * CA ensures that democratic deliberation take place in a relatively small and manageable assembly the citizens’ assembly offers the prospect that the people themselves, rather than special interest groups, can take control of the proposal or agenda setting process.

Examples of Citizen Assemblies:
Citizens' assemblies have been used in British Columbia (2004) and Ontario (2006) in Canada, in the Netherlands (2006). 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.

British Columbia
160 in the British Columbia citizens’ assembly 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. The recommendations from the Canadian citizens' assemblies went direct to a referendum.

Ontario
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. The recommendations from the British Columbia citizens' 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, and the recommendations were rejected by 60.9% of voters in a follow-up referendum[1] after a public education campaign.

Netherlands
142 people participated in the Dutch citizens’ assembly. The recommendations from the Netherlands' Citizens' Assembly (Burgerforum) went to the Dutch national parliament, where they were indeed adopted as law.

Belgium
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.[5][6]

Advantages of Citizens’ Assemblies:
Successfully breaches the border of direct democracy by accomplishing two of the three general components of such. Are to the same degree that randomly selected bodies

Representative and Inclusive

 * Manin, Representative Democracy Issues
 * Median Voter

Cognitive Diversity
A study conducted by Lu Hong and Scott Page contends that cognitive diversity is an important element of effective problem solving. Deliberation amongst a diverse group can produce better results since unique perspectives and interpretations generally enhance analysis of an issue. [2]

Deliberation

 * Open debate by the general public is not needed to cure the chief mischief of traditional modes of direct democracy.  Perhaps what is needed is a genuinely public forum for deliberation over the agenda; one that cannot be easily captured by special interests.
 * The citizens’ assembly embodies the two central requirements for direct democracy: 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

Common Interest

 * Excludes 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.
 * 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.

Anti-Corruption
Kleroterians — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msimardhalm (talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

How Citizen Assemblies Compare to Other Mini-Publics:
Gooden (2006) and Dryzek definition. Defined differently by two different people. Deliberative Impacts: the macro-Political Update of Mini-Publics.” Politics and Society.

Decision Producing
produce decisions

Lack of Order
Is this a good model for deliberation.

Incompetence of the Common Individual
A central criticism of the Citizen 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.

Do Citizen Assemblies Incur Elitism?
Some worry it creates a new elite

Are they Representative?
"An important issue is the status of a citizens' assembly as a representative institution. It is not representative in the traditional electoral sense; citizens of British Columbia did not elect them as their representatives in this process.  Instead, the quasi-random process of selection that was used ensured a different kind of representativeness in the resulting body.  It was representative of the gender composition of the province, and it was modestly representative of the range of income, age, and education that was present in the province.  It was necessary to add several slots to provide representation for indigenous groups. And, most important, it was a process that essentially excluded the likelihood of over-representation of "special interests", whether business, labor, or social issues. 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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msimardhalm (talk • contribs) 20:59, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Are Mini-Publics killing mass-representation?
Wide range discussion

Christina Lafont, 014 Should Deliberative Mini-Publics Shape Public Policy

Bibliography:
John Ferejohn,“The Citizens’Assembly Model,” in M. E. Warren et H. Pearse, (eds), Designing Deliberative Democracy, The British Columbia Citizens’Assembly, p. 192-213.

Graham Smith, Democratic Innovations, Chp 3

Hélène Landemore,“Deliberation, cognitive diversity, and democratic inclusiveness: an epistemic argument for the random selection of representatives,” Synthèse

Warren, M. E. & Pearse, H. (Eds.).(2008). Designing deliberative democracy: The British Columbia citizens’ assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Goodie and Dryzek. 2006 “Deliberative Impacts: The Macro-Political Uptake of Mini-Publics.” Politics and Society: 219-

Archon Fung. Recipes ofr Public Spheres.

Lafont,

Mark Warren, British Columbia

Dowlen, Phillips, Stone, Barnett

Fishkin,

http://www.academia.edu/3999460/Defining_Mini-publics_Making_sense_of_existing_conceptions Msimardhalm (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Untitled
Article omits information about "Citizens Assembly" which purports in a direct mail solicitation to being a 501(c)(4) non-profit organization in the USA. Should information about (or reference to) this organization appear in some form? What is the WP policy about such organizations? Wcmead3 (talk) 03:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Citizens' assembly. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307001551/http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/Fine%20Gael%20Manifesto%20low-res.pdf to http://www.finegael2011.com/pdf/Fine%20Gael%20Manifesto%20low-res.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120307001558/http://vote.greenparty.ie/downloads/manifesto.pdf to http://vote.greenparty.ie/downloads/manifesto.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.pgexchange.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=132&Itemid=121

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:50, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Recent Additions
As part of a class on Philosophy of Science for the Study of Politics, I've been working on adding to this article on Citizens' Assembly. The article is already exhaustive and excellent, and I sought mostly to add within the already established structure. I added some context to the lead section as well as some new portions to Procedure, Major Criticisms, and Proposed Assemblies. My additions have been well-sourced, and I think they are relevant both theoretically and empirically to the article. I'm open to any and all comments. Nolanjc97 (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Policy jury is a Canadian version
Let's merge Policy jury into here --Geysirhead (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Student editor Plans for article
Hi, I am a student at Yale University taking a course on Deliberative Democracy. I will be editing the Citizens' Assembly page as part of a course assignment. The two main things I'm planning to contribute are a section on the Washington Citizens Climate Assembly (which took place this winter) as well as expanding on the Mini-public debate section (adding in the perspectives of Lafont and Landemore) in conversation with Fishkin. Rkm22 (talk) 23:00, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Good --Geysirhead (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Notability for examples
After not being able to find evidence of notability for Washington State's climate assembly, for example, I removed it. There are hundreds of examples we could showcase (according to OECD) and Oregon and the CIR and the Texas renewables example from the '90's seem like the most notable US contributions to the topic. Superb Owl (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Integrating 'Opportunities' and 'Concerns' sections into 'Defining features'
Per WP:Criticism ("In most cases separate sections devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like should be avoided in an article because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints.") I am integrating the arguments and most notable sources into the 'Defining features' section, unless we think this article should be an exception. Can publish a draft here if that's of interest. Superb Owl (talk) 06:06, 3 August 2023 (UTC)