Nardine Alnemr

While algorithms largely isolate publics in bubbles of misinformation and conspiracy theories, online spaces and communication enable an opportunity for a connected global public sphere. For deliberative democrats, their concerns over algorithmic harms pertain to how algorithms promote exclusion and political polarization, undermine the epistemic quality of public deliberation by disseminating misinformation, and compromise internal reflection by amplifying particular discourses through bots. However valid these concerns are, focusing on them alone does not offer a holistic theory of deliberative democracy now that we live in a global, connected and algorithmic society. In this article, I argue that deliberative democracy should not only focus on institutional reform to address algorithmic harms, but also emphasize locating the creative political agency of everyday citizens to contest these harms. I recast the three algorithmic harms deliberative democrats identified as three ways ordinary citizens can contest algorithms and, in so doing, contribute to building the polity’s deliberative capacity necessary to democratize our algorithmic society.

Google, Meta, Open AI and Anthropic have commissioned projects based on deliberative democracy. What was the purpose of each project? How was deliberation designed and implemented, and what were the outcomes? In this Technical Paper, Malkin and Alnemr describe the commissioning context, the purpose and remit, and the outcomes of these deliberative projects. Finally, they offer insights on contextualising projects within the broader aspirations of deliberative democracy.

Recent theories of democratic representation push beyond 'minimalist' notions that only rely on periodic elections to connect officials and constituents. For example, Jane Mansbridge (2019) calls for 'recursive representation', which seeks ongoing, two-way interaction between representatives and their constituents. Given the scale and complexity of modern representative democracies, how can such ambitious proposals be translated into practice? We analyze two Deliberative Town Halls (DTHs) convened with a Federal Member of Australian Parliament in 2020 to discuss a complex issue, mitochondrial donation, ahead of a parliamentary debate and conscience vote on this issue. Drawing on interviews with participants, we argue that democratic innovations such as DTHs can contribute to realizing recursive representation when three criteria are met: authenticity, inclusion, and impact. We discuss the significance of each criterion and the role of DTHs in advancing recursive representation in a parliamentary system.

Algorithms are used to calculate and govern varying aspects of public life for efficient use of the vast data available about citizens. Assuming that algorithms are neutral and efficient in data-based decision making, algorithms are used in areas such as criminal justice and welfare. This has ramifications on the ideal of democratic self-government as algorithmic decisions are made without democratic deliberation, scrutiny or justification. In the book Democracy without Shortcuts, Cristina Lafont argued against “shortcutting” democratic self-government. Lafont’s critique of shortcuts turns to problematise taken-for-granted practices in democracies that bypass citizen inclusion and equality in authoring decisions governing public life. In this article, I extend Lafont’s argument to another shortcut: the algocratic shortcut. The democratic harms attributable to the algocratic shortcut include diminishing the role of voice in politics and reducing opportunities for civic engagement. In this article, I define the algocratic shortcut and discuss the democratic harms of this shortcut, its relation to other shortcuts to democracy and the limitations of using shortcuts to remedy algocratic harms. Finally, I reflect on remedy through “aspirational deliberation”.

In our recent research, we focus on options for rethinking the representation gap between young people’s lived experiences and formal politics. Examining three forms of representation – descriptive, discursive and recursive – has shown us that paying attention to these three forms can not only enhance the inclusion of young people within formal politics, but also improve the quality of democratic decision-making itself. This requires institutions and institutional actors that are willing to experiment with and implement democratic innovations of this kind. One recent project conducted in Australia, Connecting to Parliament, could offer valuable insights into pathways to young people’s inclusion in politics.

Digital platforms provide new potentials and challenges to deliberative democracy. In his recent works, Professor John Gastil argues that we need to advance the potential of online deliberation by seeking commitment from political actors and increasing their responsiveness to citizens. Join us in this conversation to explore questions about using digital platforms in deliberative democracy, changes in deliberative thinking about the potential of online deliberation, and some of the persistent challenges such as inclusion.

John Gastil (PhD, University of Wisconsin-Madison) is a Distinguished Professor in the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences and Political Science at the Pennsylvania State University, where he is senior scholar at the McCourtney Institute for Democracy. Gastil’s research focuses on the theory and practice of deliberative democracy. The National Science Foundation has supported his research on the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, the Australian Citizens’ Parliament, and American juries. His most recent books are Hope for Democracy (Oxford, 2020) with Katherine R. Knobloch, Legislature by Lot (Verso, 2019) with Erik Olin Wright, and two novels published in 2020, including the near-future sci-fi Gray Matters about the interplay of Alzheimer's, American politics, and artificial intelligence.