Open main menu

Deliberative Democracy Institiute Wiki β

Changes

G1000 - Analysis

1,815 bytes added, 06:16, 30 March 2016
Phase 2: Suggesting Ideas
===Phase 2: Suggesting Ideas===
In the second phase, a random sample of 1000 participants were selected. The sample was tested for representedness and was found to represent the population.
 The mangers did change the level of representedness in favor of defense from majority roll. The Belgium Population is composed of 61% Flemish and 39% Walloons. To [[Defenses from the power of majority|defend the minority form the sheer power of the majority]], the organizers set the representatives to be 50% Flemish and 50% Walloons. In addition to the main event, citizen could participate in an online version of the discussion and ideas proposal (730 participated). And also in 50 meetings around the country (356 participated). All in all, the level of representedness is very high in the 2nd stage. ===Phase 3: Creating and Selecting Solutions=== In this phase 32 participants were randomly selected from 491 participants of the 2nd phase that volunteered for the 3rd stage. Due to the high resources the step of generating solutions and producing consensus consume, in time and mental effort (due to [[problems of deliberation]]), only tiny body can take part of it. Random selection seems therefore to be the best practical solution, although. ===Phase 4: introducing the solution to the Government===The Legislators were introduced to the solution in the last stage. The Politicians seems to be from the high levels of the legislative branch<ref>Final report p.30</ref>.  Legislators are the major influencer on the Government, and therefor are highly influential stakeholders. They were not involved in the decision making in any part, and therefore their valuable knowledge was lacking. This knowledge is important for passing legislation process. A process that can influence the government. Not taking part in a decision also discourage legislators to from taking further actions to promote the legislation. This may have created the some of the fails of the government to follow the decisions. As we understand from the report no member of the government was invited share knowledge or to take part in decision making, which also damaged to follow-up.  ===Total inclusive=== According to [[inclusiveness scale]]:*Agenda: 3/10* solutions: ** Citizens: 9/10** experts: 5/10** Legislators: 2/10** Decision Makers: 0/10Total: 0.475==Corroborated Knowledge==
==References==