Just wrote a full 38-page dissent memo on democracy, representation, and institutional realism for a pro-democracy / reform group, with counterproposals. Some early takeaways from the process and early discussion: - Citizens’ Assemblies are good for showing a snapshot of public sentiment, but can’t replace deliberative policymaking in a republic; - Especially in today’s America, any findings and/or policies from even a fully unbiased and good faith Citizens Assembly (and any supporting policy commission) will be polarizing, because enactment relies on existing legislative and executive, and therefore electoral incentive structures; - Because of this, elected officials—both “good” and “bad” ones—are incentivized to make decisions that appeal to the base that can get them elected, anyway. - As a result, the findings and any policy recommendations—whether good representations and solutions or not—instead become a new argumentative cudgel for politicians and parties to argue against each other. - Citizens’ Assemblies are, however, crucial tools for a public to rewrite the incentive structures behind elections and social choice by demonstrating preference in expressing that choice. The key is then to approach that assembly with a coalition of good faith actors, incentive- and institutional-level problems, and get feedback on a better system. In essence, good intentions that don’t address incentives and decision-making flows can do more harm than good. What do you think?