Home › Topics › Government › Democracy & Rule of Law › Belief: Representative civic juries should be convened, online and…
Belief
Representative civic juries should be convened, online and in person, to deliberate on key legislation. 0.50 Agree Disagree
If you disagree, this page has a column for you. A reason to disagree that answers: “Civic juries replace shallow opinion polls with deep deliberation”.
Argument TreesHow arguments are scored →
Reasons to agree
Reasons to disagree
| # | Argument | Truth | Conf | Link | Imp | Uniq | Score |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nothing here yet. | |||||||
Weight for 0.00 · weight against 0.00 · net +0.00
Each reason is a claim with its own page. Score = sign x (2 x Truth - 1) x Conf x Link x Imp x Uniq, and every column is here so the row can be multiplied out and checked. A reason argued false scores negative and counts against the side it is filed on; a reason nobody has argued yet scores exactly 0, and so does one whose own page has no work behind it.
Wording overlap, unarguedIreland's Citizens' Assembly of 99 randomly selected citizens deliberated on abortion rights, and a constitutional referendum driven by its recommendations legalized abortion against Ireland legalized same-sex marriage through a constitutional referendum driven by citizen assembly recommendations (0.45 alike)
What Would Change the AnswerTruth scores →
Not shown: 3 further inputs, each moving it less than any row shown
Every claim beneath this page held at false and then at true, one at a time, with the whole graph recomputed each time. "If false" and "if true" are where this page’s truth score lands; "Move" is how far apart they are. "If settled" is that same distance with the input’s confidence held at 1, which is what it would be worth once the work behind it is finished, so the gap between Move and If settled is the value of doing that work. This is one input at a time and finds single points of failure; it does not test several inputs moving together, which is how correlated assumptions actually fail.
Evidence LedgerHow evidence is scored →
Supporting
Weakening
| # | Finding | Bears on | Starts at | Truth | Conf | Link | Imp | Score | EVS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ireland's 2024 referendums on family definitions failed despite citizen assembly recommendations. Rests on: Nothing observed: no source type recorded, so this claim starts at a coin flip | this belief | 0.50 | 0.50 | 0.00 | 1.00 | 0.50 | -0.00 | 0.00 |
Weight for 0.00 · weight against 0.00 · net +0.00
Evidence Verification Score 0.00 · supporting 0.00 · weakening 0.00. 8 of 8 findings have no source type named yet; 8 have no replication count recorded, so each counts as one study.
Findings that can fail empirically. Each has its own page where its accuracy is argued; the source is shown under it. Bears on says which claim the finding is filed under: this belief, or one of its reasons, in which case it reaches this page through that reason's truth score and is counted there. “Starts at” is where a finding's page begins before anyone argues with it, set by what kind of source it is, how many independent replications exist and how many of them agreed. A finding nobody has classified starts at 0.50, and at 0.50 it contributes nothing however often it is listed.
Related Beliefs
- We should support and strengthen democracy to restore the voter's voice. 0.50
- Ranked-choice voting produces better electoral outcomes than plurality voting. 0.50
- We should defend the United States Constitution. 0.50
- Congressional term limits would reduce corruption and improve legislative quality. 0.50
- Representative civic juries should be convened, online and in person, to deliberate on key legislation. (this page)
The other beliefs filed under Democracy & Rule of Law; this one is listed unlinked.
Not filled in yet
| Falsifiability Test | nothing named that would strengthen or weaken this belief if it turned up |
| Testable Predictions | nothing stated that we should observe if this belief is true or false |
| Objective Criteria | no yardstick both sides would accept in advance has been proposed |
| What Acting On This Would Cost and Gain | no costs or benefits priced yet |
| Logical Anatomy | the claim has not been split into its component parts |
| Interests, Not Positions | nobody has mapped who wants what, or why |
| Media Resources | no books, studies or films weighed |
| Legal Framework | no laws or rulings cited |
| General to Specific | not linked to broader or narrower beliefs |
Parts of the template nobody has filled in here. They are named rather than shown, because an empty table is not a finding, and each one is a reason the confidence above is not higher. A part that takes rows has a form for its first one.
What this page needs right now
| # | The gap | Where it goes | Who is best placed to fill it |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | A reason to disagree that answers: “Civic juries replace shallow opinion polls with deep deliberation” | Argument Trees, Reasons to disagree | someone who holds the opposing position |
| 2 | A study, record or dataset for “Civic juries replace shallow opinion polls with deep deliberation”, which rests on argument alone | Evidence Ledger | anyone with the source |
| 3 | A measurement both sides would accept in advance, with the reading each side predicts | Objective Criteria | anyone who can name a yardstick the other side would sign |
Named gaps, read off the tables above, so a newcomer can see exactly where a contribution goes. None of them requires agreeing with the page, and each one links to the form it goes in.
What the numbers are made of
- Share on the agree side
- no scored weight either way
- Confidence
- 35%. Weakest parts: scrutiny 0% · grounding 0%
- Depended on
- ReasonRank 0.0033, 142 of 2173
- Strongest reason for
- Civic juries replace shallow opinion polls with deep deliberation. +0.00
- What would move this most
- Settling Civic juries replace shallow opinion polls with deep deliberation.: 0.50 if false, 0.50 if true
- Coverage
- Of 17 scored rows, 17 have no linkage page, 17 have no importance page, 17 have no uniqueness page. This page reads 17 other pages. 17 of them are one-sided or empty: Civic juries replace shallow opinion polls with deep deliberation.; Civic juries give citizens a way to provide structured input continuously, not only at elections.; Civic juries let citizens participate meaningfully whenever they choose to contribute.; Civic juries give randomly selected, demographically representative jurors time, expert briefings, and structured deliberation so they can move from gut reactions to informed judgment.; Civic juries make it harder for elected officials to ignore documented public reasoning.; Online civic juries let thousands of people contribute.; Online civic juries produce better collective intelligence by bringing in more perspectives.; Broader representation gives a civic jury's recommendations greater legitimacy.; Civic juries aim for transparent reasoning rather than consensus, so elected officials and voters can see why people support or oppose policies.; Mongolia used deliberative polling to gather public input on constitutional reforms, and Parliament wrote the process into national law as a permanent part of its constitutional amendment process.; Ireland's Citizens' Assembly of 99 randomly selected citizens deliberated on abortion rights, and a constitutional referendum driven by its recommendations legalized abortion.; Ireland legalized same-sex marriage through a constitutional referendum driven by citizen assembly recommendations.; In the 2019 America in One Room experiment, political polarization dropped measurably among more than 500 demographically diverse Americans after a weekend of structured deliberation.; In the 2019 America in One Room experiment, participants' empathy for opposing viewpoints increased after a weekend of structured deliberation.; In the 2019 America in One Room experiment, participants shifted positions based on evidence rather than tribal loyalty.; In the 2019 America in One Room experiment, both conservative and liberal participants moderated extreme positions.; Ireland's 2024 referendums on family definitions failed despite citizen assembly recommendations..
- Bottom line
- Give people facts, time, and structured debate, and democracy actually works.
Structural Checks
| Finding | How serious | What it means |
|---|---|---|
| Rows that may be the same point twice | worth checking | 1 pair(s) of rows here read alike and no uniqueness page argues the overlap, so each is carrying its full weight. The measure reads wording, not meaning. |
| Nothing stated would show it false | a note | No testable prediction is listed, so as written there is no observation that would count against this belief. |
Faults the shape of the argument can show without reading a word of it: a claim used to support itself, a conclusion listed among its own premises, the same page counted twice. None of these changes a score. The wiki also specifies pattern-matching the prose for ten named fallacies; that is deliberately not done here, because a matcher looking for “attacking the person rather than the argument” would fire on the central legitimate argument on this whole site, and a score moved by a regular expression has no page to appeal to.
Scoring EngineTruth scores →
| Quantity | Value | How |
|---|---|---|
| Argument score | +0.00 | argument rows: weight for minus weight against |
| Evidence score | +0.00 | evidence rows: weight for minus weight against |
| Prediction contribution | +0.00 | prediction rows, same signed formula as every other row |
| Belief score | +0.00 | the three lines above added together |
| Positive total | 0.00 | every row whose signed contribution came out positive, from either side |
| Negative total | 0.00 | every row whose signed contribution came out negative, as a magnitude |
| Starting point | 0.50 | where this claim starts before any of its own rows count: Nothing observed: no source type recorded, so this claim starts at a coin flip |
| Weight of the starting point | 1.00 | k x a bounded reward for independent replication, k = 1, capped at 2.0 x k |
| Truth score, argued | 0.50 | (positive + weight x starting point) / (positive + negative + weight) |
| Truth score | 0.50 | argued truth, capped by the weakest load-bearing component that has its own page |
| ReasonRank | 0.0033 | how much of the site depends on this page: rank 142 of 2173. The share of a walk that starts at the 162 beliefs and steps to the pages they read, with a 0.85 chance of stepping on each time |
| Work value | 0.0022 | ReasonRank x (1 - confidence): how much settling this page would be worth to everything above it |
| Completeness | no | at least one scored reason on each side (an importance page: at least one interest; an interest page: both readings filled) |
Cite this page Representative civic juries should be convened, online and in person, to deliberate on key legislation. Idea Stock Exchange, belief page representative-civic-juries-convened, truth 0.50, confidence 35%, revision 42c8344 of 2026-10-04. The revision is what makes this quotable: these numbers move as the argument is worked on, and rebuilding that revision reproduces them exactly.
Every number on this page as data: representative-civic-juries-convened.json. Constants: K = 1 · UNARG = 0.5 · DEFLINK = 1 · DEFIMP = 0.5 · DEFUNIQ = 1. A reason placed under a conclusion is presumed relevant until a linkage page says otherwise; the burden is on the challenger. The neutral start for importance, the wiki's own rule.
Every value here is computed from the tables above at build time. Nothing is typed.