Can citizen assemblies heal America’s broken democracy?

Hill’s impression reflects a broader perspective apprehension around civic assemblies: that by definition these are manipulated spaces, susceptible to the influence of governments or activist groups – that is why it is important that they are organized by non-partisan organizations. Another general concern is that even with the best recruitment strategies, it can still be difficult to obtain a truly representative sample of society, especially among low-income and marginalized communities that have less time to gather — although providing financial incentives to participants can help, Elstub said.

A deeper issue: the fact that participants often change their minds during debate means that by the end, their consensus opinions may no longer reflect the opinions of the general population.

This became clear in 2007, when citizens of the Canadian province of Ontario were asked to vote in a referendum on the reform of the electoral system proposed by the citizens’ assembly. Only 37% of voters agreed, which is not enough to pass the measure, said retired professor Jane Rainey Eastern Kentucky University.

“People who are at meetings learn different things, know different things. They take part in group discussions, exchange information, exchange points of view, and from that they refine an idea on how to change or adopt a policy.” her husband said, Glenn Rainey, professor emeritus of the same institution. But the public “didn’t have it all.”

If a majority of the public disagrees with a citizens’ assembly, “you still have to agree with the majority,” Elstub said. “Otherwise we will descend into dangerous, undemocratic territory if we allow a hundred people to rule over millions.” For this reason, many experts argue that assemblies should not make any direct decisions authorityinstead, use their recommendations as a basis for referendums or as guidelines for policies that politicians then set.

In any case, the meetings should be accompanied by aggressive education campaigns to inform the public what their members have learned and how they achieved the recommendations, Jane Rainey added, something Ontario has put little or no effort into. The goal of citizens’ assemblies is not to reach a consensus that reflects public opinion, she said, “but to agree on the best possible solution and to convince citizens will agree.”

For this reason, Lafont prefers other types of “deliberative mini-publics” to increase political engagement. She points Oregon Citizens Initiative Review where citizens come together not to make policy recommendations, but to review current voting arrangements and make statements about key facts and reasons for voting for and against. This helps other citizens make decisions based on less biased and more relevant information than that received by politicians or the media. “If you give them informed assessments – well-informed, well-thought-out reasons for and against – it’s very difficult to say it’s rigged because you don’t have a plan,” Lafont says.

Elstub sees citizens’ assemblies, when done well, as one of many tools that can improve democratic decision-making. One of their greatest advantages is perhaps the impact on the participants themselves. In surveys in which Elstub worked with members of the British Climate Assembly two and a half years later, he found that it was transforming experience for many of them. Most of them talked more about climate change, recycling more and eating less meat and dairy. IN France AND Austriaassembly members have formed climate non-governmental organizations to hold decision-makers accountable for their recommendations.

As for Scovel, he believes there should be a climate assembly in every state, city, county, village and city council. “If more people could participate in civic assemblies, “it would enable more voices to be heard, and that is what we really want.” he said.