Cargando…

Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies

Globally, there has been a recent surge in ‘citizens’ assemblies’(1), which are a form of civic participation in which a panel of randomly selected constituents contributes to questions of policy. The random process for selecting this panel should satisfy two properties. First, it must produce a pan...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Flanigan, Bailey, Gölz, Paul, Gupta, Anupam, Hennig, Brett, Procaccia, Ariel D.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Nature Publishing Group UK 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8387237/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34349266
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03788-6
_version_ 1783742420739948544
author Flanigan, Bailey
Gölz, Paul
Gupta, Anupam
Hennig, Brett
Procaccia, Ariel D.
author_facet Flanigan, Bailey
Gölz, Paul
Gupta, Anupam
Hennig, Brett
Procaccia, Ariel D.
author_sort Flanigan, Bailey
collection PubMed
description Globally, there has been a recent surge in ‘citizens’ assemblies’(1), which are a form of civic participation in which a panel of randomly selected constituents contributes to questions of policy. The random process for selecting this panel should satisfy two properties. First, it must produce a panel that is representative of the population. Second, in the spirit of democratic equality, individuals would ideally be selected to serve on this panel with equal probability(2,3). However, in practice these desiderata are in tension owing to differential participation rates across subpopulations(4,5). Here we apply ideas from fair division to develop selection algorithms that satisfy the two desiderata simultaneously to the greatest possible extent: our selection algorithms choose representative panels while selecting individuals with probabilities as close to equal as mathematically possible, for many metrics of ‘closeness to equality’. Our implementation of one such algorithm has already been used to select more than 40 citizens’ assemblies around the world. As we demonstrate using data from ten citizens’ assemblies, adopting our algorithm over a benchmark representing the previous state of the art leads to substantially fairer selection probabilities. By contributing a fairer, more principled and deployable algorithm, our work puts the practice of sortition on firmer foundations. Moreover, our work establishes citizens’ assemblies as a domain in which insights from the field of fair division can lead to high-impact applications.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8387237
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Nature Publishing Group UK
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83872372021-09-15 Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies Flanigan, Bailey Gölz, Paul Gupta, Anupam Hennig, Brett Procaccia, Ariel D. Nature Article Globally, there has been a recent surge in ‘citizens’ assemblies’(1), which are a form of civic participation in which a panel of randomly selected constituents contributes to questions of policy. The random process for selecting this panel should satisfy two properties. First, it must produce a panel that is representative of the population. Second, in the spirit of democratic equality, individuals would ideally be selected to serve on this panel with equal probability(2,3). However, in practice these desiderata are in tension owing to differential participation rates across subpopulations(4,5). Here we apply ideas from fair division to develop selection algorithms that satisfy the two desiderata simultaneously to the greatest possible extent: our selection algorithms choose representative panels while selecting individuals with probabilities as close to equal as mathematically possible, for many metrics of ‘closeness to equality’. Our implementation of one such algorithm has already been used to select more than 40 citizens’ assemblies around the world. As we demonstrate using data from ten citizens’ assemblies, adopting our algorithm over a benchmark representing the previous state of the art leads to substantially fairer selection probabilities. By contributing a fairer, more principled and deployable algorithm, our work puts the practice of sortition on firmer foundations. Moreover, our work establishes citizens’ assemblies as a domain in which insights from the field of fair division can lead to high-impact applications. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-08-04 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8387237/ /pubmed/34349266 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03788-6 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Article
Flanigan, Bailey
Gölz, Paul
Gupta, Anupam
Hennig, Brett
Procaccia, Ariel D.
Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies
title Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies
title_full Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies
title_fullStr Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies
title_full_unstemmed Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies
title_short Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies
title_sort fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8387237/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34349266
http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03788-6
work_keys_str_mv AT flaniganbailey fairalgorithmsforselectingcitizensassemblies
AT golzpaul fairalgorithmsforselectingcitizensassemblies
AT guptaanupam fairalgorithmsforselectingcitizensassemblies
AT hennigbrett fairalgorithmsforselectingcitizensassemblies
AT procacciaarield fairalgorithmsforselectingcitizensassemblies