Beyond the echo chamber: modelling open-mindedness in citizens’ assemblies

Abstract

A Citizens’ assembly (CA) is a democratic innovation tool where a randomly selected group of citizens deliberate a topic over multiple rounds to generate, and then vote upon, policy recommendations. Despite growing popularity, little work exists on understanding how CA inputs, such as the expert selection process and the mixing method used for discussion groups, affect results. In this work, we model CA deliberation and opinion change as a multi-agent systems problem. We introduce and formalise a set of criteria for evaluating successful CAs using insight from previous CA trials and theoretical results. Although real-world trials meet these criteria, we show that finding a model that does so is non-trivial; through simulations and theoretical arguments, we show that established opinion change models fail at least one of these criteria. We therefore propose an augmented opinion change model with a latent ‘open-mindedness’ variable, which sufficiently captures people’s propensity to change opinion. We show that data from the CA of Scotland indicates a latent variable both exists and resembles the concept of open-mindedness in the literature. We calibrate parameters against real CA data, demonstrating our model’s ecological validity, before running simulations across a range of realistic global parameters, with each simulation satisfying our criteria. Specifically, simulations meet criteria regardless of expert selection, expert ordering, participant extremism, and sub-optimal participant grouping, which has ramifications for optimised algorithmic approaches in the computational CA space.