Before a big local or national vote, let citizens chosen by lottery weigh the issues and send their findings to every voter
Steps to make it happen
- Before people vote on something important, the community picks about 20 citizens by lottery.
- The people chosen are mixed so they differ in age, home area, and way of thinking.
- The chosen citizens spend several days listening to people who are for the measure and people who are against it.
- They also question experts to check which claims are true and which are exaggerated.
- They put the results of their talks into one short page that anyone can read.
- That page is sent to the homes of all voters and posted on the internet.
- Before a vote, it becomes normal for people to read what ordinary citizens have worked out.
Water so far 💧 0
The proposal in detail
This proposal covers referendums held across a whole country or region, and citizen-initiated votes whose results must be followed. Once a vote is set, an independent body that runs elections picks twenty to thirty citizens by lottery from the voter list. The mix is adjusted so that age, gender, home area, education, and leaning before the vote are close to the shares in society as a whole. Participants are paid a daily allowance and given travel costs and the cost of caring for children or family, and the law protects them from any penalty for taking time off work. The talks last about four to five days. The camps for and against each get the same amount of time to present their case, and the experts the participants want to hear are chosen through a process in which both camps can object. A facilitator only keeps the discussion flowing and does not interfere with its content. At the end, participants put into a single document the important facts everyone should know, the strongest reason for the measure, the strongest reason against it, and any claims they judged inaccurate after examining them. Each item is decided by a majority of participants, and minority views are written alongside. The document does not recommend how to vote, and each region can choose whether to print the number of participants on each side. The document must be included in the official voting guide, and plain-language, audio, and translated versions in the languages used locally are also prepared. In urgent cases with little time before the vote, a shorter version is held, and the document has no legal force. The proceedings are recorded and made public.
BenefitsReliable material for judging reaches every voter
The biggest benefit is that every voter can get material put together by ordinary citizens like themselves, who belong to neither camp. Even people who are wary of the words of politicians and experts are more likely to read conclusions reached after several days of study by people like neighbors chosen by lottery. Because the document also lists claims judged inaccurate after examination, advertising with weak grounds and false information spread less easily, and both camps have a reason to campaign in line with the facts. Because the strongest reasons for and against are shown side by side, people can see why those who disagree with them think as they do, and this can also be expected to ease divisions in society after the vote. For the citizens who take part, it is a valuable experience of thinking while facing people from different positions, and that experience spreads to those around them through family and work. It does not replace the vote itself. The final decision stays with all voters while the quality of their judgment improves, so it covers the weak points of direct democracy without damaging its strengths. The cost can also be kept small compared with the cost of running the whole vote.
DrawbacksA few unelected people may sway the vote
What opponents worry about most is that a document by a few dozen people, who were neither elected nor can be held to account, could in effect sway the votes of millions by appearing in the official guide. Even with a lottery, the conclusion can change depending on how the process is designed, such as which experts are invited, in what order people are heard, and how the issues are divided up. It is hard for outsiders to verify that the organizing body is truly neutral, and if the losing side claims it was biased from the start, there is a danger that trust is damaged not only in the system but in the result of the vote itself. In a small group, a skilled or loud speaker can pull everyone along, and with about twenty people, there may not be a single person who represents the views of some minorities. Also, voters can think for themselves, and some feel that having an official body judge which claims are inaccurate interferes with their freedom to think. The daily allowances, the running costs, and the longer voting schedule needed for preparation are also burdens. Moreover, if the document is handed out but not read, its effect is weak, and all the effort may end with nothing changing.
Learn the background
Referendums are an important way for voters to decide directly on issues that shape a country's path or local life. But in real campaigns, short slogans and emotional ads stand out, and claims with unclear grounds spread all at once on social media. Most voters are busy with work and housework and have no time to compare thick stacks of material. Explanations handed out by the government tend to be too technical, or are suspected of favoring one side. On top of that, trust in politicians, experts, and the news media is shaky in many societies, so even correct information may not be accepted. On the other hand, there is the view that people find it easier to listen when the findings come from citizens in a position like their own who took time to investigate and discuss, and attempts at discussions among citizens chosen by lottery are spreading around the world. In an age when the result of a vote can carry a weight that cannot be undone, we need to build a way for voters to get the material they need to 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 2026-10-15d) and translated by AI (claude-sonnet-5-5). Nobody has checked the facts. Read the original (日本語) How the AI writes