Citizens' assemblies

The extent to which those making decisions understand the information critical to making that decision. To what extent: Do participants gain critical context about tradeoffs and consequences of different decisions? Is this sourced from: Experts? The existing authorities, who may have extensive context? A broad diversity of constituents? The most impacted stakeholders? The powerful stakeholders, whose incentives are critical to having the decision “stick”?

The extent to which decisions are substantive (e.g., actionable, consequential) rather than nonsubstantive (e.g., vague, simplistic, inconsequential). To what extent: Is the decision directly actionable and implementable? Does the decision meaningfully address the issues? Does the decision grapple with the necessary levels of complexity? Is uncertainty appropriately managed and accounted for? Are risks to implementability accounted for?

The extent to which decisions are considered and well-reasoned (rather than superficial and reactive). To what extent are those involved: Able to (and supported to) move from shallower to deeper goals and values? Able to (and supported to) collaborate where necessary? Able to address issues within the available time?

The extent to which the process is robust to suboptimal conditions or adversarial or coordinated manipulative behavior. To what extent is the process or system vulnerable to: Suboptimal conditions or broken assumptions (e.g., low turnout, larger power asymmetries)? Strategic behavior and manipulation? False claims (e.g., of manipulation)?

The extent to which key decisions are representative of the views of the constituent population. To what extent: Is there sufficient representation at critical parts of the process, including (a) proposing decisions, and (b) making ultimate decisions? Are there barriers leading to bias in representation?

The relevant public is aware of the democratic process. To what extent is the relevant public aware: That the democratic system exists? How it works? What it is being used for? How they can be involved?

The extent to which the processes and decisions are accessible, understandable, and verifiable. To what extent is information (a) accessible, (b) understandable, (c) verifiable about the: Processes/ systems used to make decisions? The execution of these processes? Decisions being made? Reasons and inputs feeding into decisions?

The extent to which democratic processes can be designed and modified to fit specific requirements. To what extent can: Processes be designed to meet desired outcomes or system needs, given constraints? Process designers easily construct coherent processes for novel applications or emerging challenges?

The extent to which deliberative processes can expand in scope, geography, and participant numbers while maintaining quality and effectiveness. The extent to which deliberative processes can expand in scope, geography, and participant numbers while maintaining quality and effectiveness. To what extent can: Processes operate effectively at transnational levels? Large numbers of participants be accommodated without compromising deliberation quality? Multiple, decentralized processes be coordinated and synthesized productively?

The extent to which deliberative processes can be conducted efficiently. To what extent can process duration be minimized without compromising quality or reliability?

The extent to which deliberative processes and their outcomes can be quantified, assessed and compared. The extent to which deliberative processes and their outcomes can be quantified, assessed and compared. To what extent can: Desired outcomes be measured? Required data be collected reliably and affordably? Different methods, processes, and systems be compared?

The extent to which knowledge about deliberative processes can be generated, shared, and applied to improve the field. To what extent can: Research opportunities be coordinated and data systematically collected? Trials be conducted rapidly enough to enable iterative learning? Are experimental designs rigorous enough to generate actionable insights?

The extent to which the commissioning authority integrates the democratic process into key elements of its decision-making and operations. To what extent is the authority structuring its internal communications and operations to: Provide critical context to the democratic process/system? Integrate democratic process outputs in its actions? Trigger democratic processes when/if required?

The authority technically and legally binds itself to democratic decisions. The authority technically and legally binds itself to democratic decisions. To what extent can the unilateral authority bind itself to acting in accordance with the democratic decision: Technically? Legally? (E.g., has developed the needed technical and/or legal infrastructure for binding; binding may be done through a mix of locks, forces, incentives, or overarching powers, e.g. legal system; physical limitations, etc.)

There are external watchdogs and accountability structures monitoring the execution of the democratic process and the implementation of its outputs. To what extent are: There well understood lines of oversight and accountability? Sufficiently influential/powerful organizations focused on holding authorities to their promised levels of democratic involvement? Authorities and democratic systems responsive to such accountability mechanisms?

The unilateral authority commits to acting in accordance with the democratic decision. To what extent has the unilateral authority committed (regardless of their ability to bind) to acting in accordance with the democratic decision: Internally? Privately (to external actors in a confidential manner)? Publicly?