I think a truly next-gen democracy might not necessarily take as its premise (as many people do) that citizens have independent views that just need to be accurately detected, aggregated, and translated into policy—but rather it should take greater account of the ways in which opinion-formation probably flows the other way—and should be designed to “nudge” both mass publics and elites against tribalism, against short-termism, and towards evidence and reason.
Yup agree with this. Ideally information flows in from constituents, and then there’s some synthesis with expert views, with information/influence flowing both directions. Agree that this didn’t come through in the essay.
I also think there are lots of different kinds of information that could flow in from citizens, rather than just their views as we traditionally think of views. For example, the way constituents are feeling (lonely, disenfranchised, purposeless, etc) all seems like really useful information that could help steer decisions. (It might be that constituents have instinctive first-blush ideas about what changes would help with those things, and those ideas might often not be very good. But they would contain information!)
I think of it kind of like product design. Generally, in product design, it’s a mistake to give people exactly what they ask for. Usually the game is to figure out what they really want, and why, and then figure out a way to give it to them. The answer might look like something they never would’ve thought of. But, critically, after you show them a draft of the answer, they should hopefully go, “Yes! That would do what I want!” — i.e, it’s important that they participate the whole way along. (That way, you’re not imposing unwanted stuff on them.)
Relatedly, the crux of our governance/democracy problems are informational and epistemic.
Agree that this is a crux
I think there’s a fair amount of experience that’s not included here… Things like participatory budgeting, etc.
Undoubtedly! If a list of things happens to jump to mind, would love to see it. The more lego blocks in the set, the better.
Thanks for the thoughts!
Yup agree with this. Ideally information flows in from constituents, and then there’s some synthesis with expert views, with information/influence flowing both directions. Agree that this didn’t come through in the essay.
I also think there are lots of different kinds of information that could flow in from citizens, rather than just their views as we traditionally think of views. For example, the way constituents are feeling (lonely, disenfranchised, purposeless, etc) all seems like really useful information that could help steer decisions. (It might be that constituents have instinctive first-blush ideas about what changes would help with those things, and those ideas might often not be very good. But they would contain information!)
I think of it kind of like product design. Generally, in product design, it’s a mistake to give people exactly what they ask for. Usually the game is to figure out what they really want, and why, and then figure out a way to give it to them. The answer might look like something they never would’ve thought of. But, critically, after you show them a draft of the answer, they should hopefully go, “Yes! That would do what I want!” — i.e, it’s important that they participate the whole way along. (That way, you’re not imposing unwanted stuff on them.)
Agree that this is a crux
Undoubtedly! If a list of things happens to jump to mind, would love to see it. The more lego blocks in the set, the better.