User:Nolanjc97/sandbox

Lead Text
"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." Add to this: 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."

"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." Add to this: 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.

Proposed citizens' assemblies
In 2019, the ongoing Brexit crisis in the United Kingdom renewed propositions for citizens' assemblies. 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.

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 UK 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. Interestingly, where support was highest for a citizens assembly on Brexit in this survey was Northern Ireland. This is perhaps due to greater awareness of the process thanks to the use of citizens assemblies in the Irish Republic.

Selection
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."

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." 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.

Systemic Destabilization
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)." 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."

Group Polarization
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." 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.

Deliberation
Add to this: 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." 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." While deliberation is itself a procedure, it is also epistemically driven, and thus broadens the consideration of legitimacy.

Agenda-Setting
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." 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."

Mini-publics
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. 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.

Article Evaluation
I chose to evaluate Citizen's Assembly.

I liked how the article was structured. There was a clear progression from the features of the bodies to examples to the critical discussion around them. It was a useful funnel from facts to critical opinion that established grounding. I found that the introduction echoed this structure as well, although occasionally I felt the introductory paragraph might have slid out of value neutrality in moments. For example, with the sentence quoted from Bernard Manin "The Citizens’ assembly aims to reinstall trust in the political process by taking direct ownership of decision-making." I suppose I'm not completely sold that that should be in the introduction.

The "Defining Features" section is a strong basis from which to work, but it definitely could be fleshed out more. It seems a bit limited in the features it indeed considers. Adding to the section a typology of different citizen assemblies or greater detail on the processes and expectations of the selection processes might be informative.

The "Examples" section as well as the sections outlining Advantages and Criticisms are well fleshed out and comprehensive. However, they do ask one to consider branches from which to work further. Mini-publics, for example, are relegated to a small sub-section in criticisms, but there is definitely more to tease out there.

The information is generally up to date given that a lot that it discusses is at the forefront of research on the topic, especially in the examples. That being said, a lot of contemporary examples are germinating currently, and I think this article will need additional details as those play out.

I think the tone is fair generally speaking in the article. There doesn't appear to be an agenda represented. I had some hang-ups with how the introduction was tonally, but it was not a major problem. I don't necessarily think this article has been latched onto as a major site of discussion and editing.

The list of sources is pretty exhaustive, and barring a few missing links, they are correctly and effectively cited. Many of the sources are some of the most reputable scholars in the field. The sections that deal with differing critical opinions serve to mediate against opinions being taken as fact, however perhaps this could be even better delineated in the "Advantages" section.

There is not much chatter in the talk page at all. It was the creation or rather subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course, though. And, as it so happens, I know the person who created the article. I suppose I could engage her on the Talk Page, or I could text her. Perhaps some fruitful discussion can come from this, within or without the Talk Page.