Send ethical questions that split opinion to a citizens' assembly chosen by lot, and require parliament to vote on them by a deadline
In short
- Questions about life and technology that divide opinion are handed to citizens chosen by lot.
- The citizens' assembly hears from experts and the people affected, and talks things over for a long time.
- Parliament must vote on the assembly's conclusion within a set deadline.
- This stops lawmakers from putting off hard questions again and again.
- No conclusion is allowed to pass if it takes away the basic rights of a small group of people.
If this comes true
A former truck driver chosen by lot walks to the station beside a nurse whose views were the opposite of his, after the end of a six-month assembly, and they talk about how both of them signed their names to the final document.
Perhaps
Once the people running the assembly choose which experts to invite, the direction of the conclusion might be set, and a law might pass without anyone noticing.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal covers questions on which people's values are deeply split and parliament has failed to reach a conclusion for a long time, such as how life ends, reproductive and genetic technology, how animals are treated, and how AI is used. If a certain number of lawmakers, or a certain number of residents' signatures, support it, the question can be sent to a citizens' assembly. Participants are chosen by lot so that age, gender, region, education and so on make the assembly a small picture of society. Participants are paid for the time they take off work, their childcare and caregiving costs are covered, and employers are forbidden from treating them badly because they took part. The assembly meets over several months, hears from experts on both the for and against sides and from the people affected, then talks among themselves and puts together a recommendation. A body independent of the government runs it, and how the experts are chosen and the records of the discussions are all made public. After receiving the recommendation, parliament must vote within a set deadline, either on a bill that follows the recommendation or on its own alternative. If it does not vote in time, the recommendation goes to a national vote. A recommendation that takes away the basic rights of a minority is reviewed against the constitution and is not allowed to pass, even if it is the assembly's conclusion.
BenefitsGives society a place to think and decide without fearing votes
Citizens chosen by lot do not have to worry about the next election or about groups that give donations. This makes it easier for them to change their minds along the way and to listen to the opposing side to the end. Ordinary people who have spent several months hearing from experts and the people affected have a path open to move away from their first opinions and reach a realistic answer with conditions attached. By requiring parliament to vote within a deadline, lawmakers lose the escape route of putting things off, and whether they agree or disagree with the conclusion, they must show their position under their own names. An answer given by people chosen as a small picture of society is easier to accept as something people like us struggled over, more than something decided by some experts. This mechanism is not limited to one question and can be used anywhere, in fields such as life, freedom, technology and justice, so it is a move that changes how a society decides, one that now stops every time values collide.
DrawbacksPeople who were not elected pull the trigger on heavy decisions
Citizens chosen by lot have not gone through an election, and voters cannot hold them responsible for the result. It is natural to ask whether an assembly of a limited number of people should decide the course of a question that touches the lives, deaths and faiths of millions. Also, the assembly's conclusion is strongly shaped by who is invited as an expert, what materials are handed out, and in what order things are discussed. Even if the running of it is made independent, the few people involved in designing it will hold great power in ways that are hard to see. Passionate groups will move to take the slots for experts invited to the assembly. Requiring parliament to vote may also lead lawmakers to rush a vote, aiming to avoid a public backlash rather than to think things through. Moreover, an ethical question sent to a national vote may turn into a simple fight of yes or no, and the conditions and hesitations built up in the assembly may be stripped away. This mechanism also cannot fully prevent the danger that the faiths and ways of life of minorities are swept away by the common sense of the majority.
Learn the background
Many problems in ethics and philosophy get stuck where people sincerely disagree about what is right. How life should end, how far a fertilized egg may be used, how much weight to give animal suffering, what to leave to AI. On questions like these, whichever answer is chosen, it creates both passionate supporters and strong opponents. For elected lawmakers, taking a clear position on such questions risks losing votes. So conclusions are put off, and in the meantime technology moves ahead, and either courts create de facto rules through rulings on individual cases, or the habits of the industries involved simply become the rules. Even when the question is handed to a committee of experts, the conclusion is pulled toward the views of whoever picks the members, and many people feel it was decided somewhere they could not see. Those who suffer are patients and families forced to make decisions with no rules, researchers, and the whole society worn out by arguments with no answer. The root problem is not the clash of values itself, but that there is no place to take it on and decide.
Choose them ready to accept their drawbacks too (up to 5)
It helps pay for the server and the AI's planting
This proposal was written in Japanese by AI (claude-opus-5-5, policy version 2026-10-23a) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes