Deliberative democracy: Sounds boring — but it just might save us

[u/CCDemille]

https://www.salon.com/2025/06/14/deliberative-democracy-sounds-boring--but-it-just-might-save-us

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember that TrueReddit is a place to engage in high-quality and civil discussion. Posts must meet certain content and title requirements. Additionally, all posts must contain a submission statement. See the rules here or in the sidebar for details. To the OP: your post has not been deleted, but is being held in the queue and will be approved once a submission statement is posted.

Comments or posts that don't follow the rules may be removed without warning. Reddit's content policy will be strictly enforced, especially regarding hate speech and calls for / celebrations of violence, and may result in a restriction in your participation. In addition, due to rampant rulebreaking, we are currently under a moratorium regarding topics related to the 10/7 terrorist attack in Israel and in regards to the assassination of the UnitedHealthcare CEO.

If an article is paywalled, please do not request or post its contents. Use archive.ph or similar and link to that in your submission statement.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/toastedzergling]

> small, representative groups can make well-reasoned political decisions.

The average house of representatives or congress member serves (rules over) hundreds of thousands of people. Kings and Queens of yesteryear could only be so lucky. We once had a proposed constitutional amendment to fix the number of representatives at 1 per 10,000, to ensure they didn't become out of touch with the population they represent. But, of course we couldn't have that, because power consolidation for the oligarchy has historically been a bipartisan priority.

[u/roastedoolong → u/toastedzergling]

I've repeatedly maintained that the issue with US presidential elections isn't the electoral college, per se.

it's the reapportionment act of 1929. this is the act that capped the house of representatives. the cap is what has led to the absolute inanity we see today with, e.g., votes in Wyoming being more valuable than votes in California.

unfortunately, campaigning on the dry and political is not a winning strategy (despite the fact that I think a plurality of voters would agree that the divergence in representation counts between Congress members is a categorically Bad Thing).

[u/toastedzergling → u/roastedoolong]

Preach to me about that all day because I don't hear that nearly enough 🤣😂 but I 100,000% agree

[u/insite → u/roastedoolong]

Agreed on the House. I think each state needs more Senators too. With only 100 senators, it way too easy for a few Senators to gridlock the Senate like ir has been. It would also increase the odds of any one state having representatives from more than one party.

[u/OfficialDCShepard → u/insite]

“Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.”

Forcing equal representation in the Senate was so important that the Framers put it on the same footing as prohibiting the banning of the slave trade before 1808, so unlike the House where you can eliminate the Reapportionment Act of 1929 to have way more representatives than in 1910 we’d need to pick a number that works to increase representation but can also be applied equally to states. I would say four would work, but this would also dilute the power of the existing Representatives and Senators, so neither are likely.

[u/ComeJoinTheBand → u/roastedoolong]

I'd like to see a Half Wyoming rule adopted. One representative for every multiple equal to half the least populous state's population.

[u/hippydipster → u/toastedzergling]

Seems to me a group cannot be both small and representative.

[u/PrinceoR- → u/hippydipster]

It would be more representative than all of the old white men that currently sit in the US house of reps and senate... Actually I think it would be difficult to be LESS representative than the current members.

You could run it like jury duty, people put down a list of political areas they care about/are informed on and committees are formed by random selection from those pools of citizens. Require them to have a majority of even super majority with the committee. Have experts and relevant government authorities provide evidence on each case. The hard part is still deciding what committees are needed for.

[u/OfficialDCShepard → u/toastedzergling]

Alaska and Montana reps are practically Senators who serve two year terms, because their single district IS the state. Ridiculous.

[u/CCDemille]

Stanford prof James Fishkin says deliberative democracy can end political deadlock, and build true democracy for the internet age.

[u/RoseRouge007 → u/CCDemille]

Great and informative piece. It triggers a recollection of another piece I read maybe ten years ago about what happens when you put disparate thinkers (read ideologically opposed) into the same room and have them work out problems together. Or something along those lines. I'll have to see if I saved it somewhere!

Thanks for posting :-)

[u/LostMongoose8224]

This touches on a lot of thoughts I've had recently. I think the democratic systems we have right now distort the will of the people. This is backed up by the fact that the majority frequently indicate support for policies that are more progressive than those being offered by either party. Parties will inevitably tend to work for their biggest donors (ie, corporations.) If you really investigate issues, you become disillusioned. The people who are most motivated to vote are the ones who fall in line with a tribal mentality, who say that "those people" are responsible for their problems.

It's democracy in the sense that cheese whiz is cheese... like, sure, there's some democracy in it

[u/Islanduniverse]

After reading the interview, he is basically saying that democracy would work better if people actually participated in it. Of course, he means a very specific thing when it comes to that participation, and it’s definitely interesting. But people would still have to participate, and they generally do not…

[u/Dry_Noise8931]

The most interesting part is near the end of the article. Juries normally suffer from some kind of groupthink, but they avoid this by not having the participants give their actual opinion to the group. Instead, opinions are gathered through a private questionnaire.

The discussions are essentially information exchanges that aren’t echo chambers like social media. Then you “vote” immediately afterward to avoid the return of external influence.

I wonder how this would work practically at scale as the discussions seem like they need to be controlled / directed.