>What do we mean by a “democratic process”?

> By “democratic process,” we mean a process in which a broadly representative group of people(A) exchange opinions, engage in deliberative discussions,(B) and ultimately decide on an outcome via a transparent decision making process.(C) There are many ways such a process could be structured—we encourage applicants to be innovative, building off known methodologies, and coming up with wholly new approaches. Examples of creative approaches that inspire us include Wikipedia, Twitter Community Notes, DemocracyNext, Platform Assemblies, MetaGov, RadicalxChange, People Powered, Collective Response Systems, and pol.is. Another notable ongoing effort is led by the Collective Intelligence Project (CIP), with whom we are partnering on public input to AI, contributing to their upcoming Alignment Assemblies. We also encourage applicants to envision how AI could enhance the democratic process. For example, AI could enable more efficient communication among numerous people. --- Democratic Inputs to AI

>A: How one selects the group of participants is a critical design question. Part of this grant challenge lies in determining questions about participation. For instance, policy questions involving minority groups may require an increased representation of group members, while questions about the impact of technology on children might necessitate the involvement of domain experts such as educators and psychologists. Moreover, certain questions might be better suited for responses from populations within specific geographical boundaries in order to address localized policy issues.

>B: Deliberation can be described as a process that uncovers opinions, helping the discussants understand each other's views and reconsider and update their viewpoints. Well-designed deliberation ensures that arguments are well understood by all sides, and are based on people's values rather than superficial misunderstandings. Successful deliberation results in participants reaching a higher level of consensus, and/or reaching deeper levels of understanding for differing perspectives.

>C: There are many decision-making algorithms to be considered here, such as electing representatives, majority voting, employing liquid democracy, and making decisions by a random population sample, also known as a jury or sortition.

>自分が所属する集団をどこにもみつけられない人々にとって、代議制は欺瞞以外の何ものでもありません。自分は代表されていない、自分の声はどこにも届いていないと感じる人々が大量に出現するとき、そのような人々は議会制民主主義を見捨て、むしろ自分たちを導く強力な指導者を求めるのです。

>変更はされなかったが、変更を主張した人も満足した

>彼らの価値観が認められて、それを踏まえた行動が実行されたから

>現代の日本の民主主義は「まず代表者を選んで、その代表者が意思決定をする」という間接的な民主主義になっている

>オードリータンは「それは帯域幅が狭すぎるよね、デジタル技術がない時代に民主主義を実現するためにそうなっただけで、デジタルネイティブはその遅いアップロード速度には満足しないよね」とつっこんでいる

>私たち自身の中に、『平等な個人による参加と責任のシステム』自体を否定する感情が生まれつつある。自分たちが意見を言おうが言うまいが、議論をしようがしなかろうが、答えは決まっている。ならば誰か他の人が決めてくれればそれでいい――そういう諦めの感覚に支配されること。これこそが民主主義の最大の敵であり、脅威だと思います

>歴史を振り返ると、民主主義と議会制は本来、別のものでした。少なくとも１８世紀までは、市民による直接的な統治である民主制と、選ばれた代表者による意思決定である共和制は明確に区別されていました