Bridging Voting and Deliberation with Algorithms: Field Insights from vTaiwan and Kultur Komitee

Fynn Bachmann; Joshua C. Yang

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 50 references

Bridging Voting and Deliberation with Algorithms: Field Insights from vTaiwan and Kultur Komitee

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that algorithms that bridge online voting with face-to-face deliberation work in real-world settings, producing measurable changes in how groups decide and how polarised they become.

desk verdict Genuine field report with honest limitations, but the PCD evidence rests on a clustering step with weak construct validity. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.05017 v2 pith:4R7JZ2QO submitted 2025-02-07 cs.HC cs.AIecon.GNq-fin.EC

Joshua C. Yang , Fynn Bachmann This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.HCcs.AIecon.GNq-fin.EC

keywords ParticipatorybudgetingCitizens'assembliesMethodofEqualSharesGroupdeliberationDemocraticinnovationOpinionclusteringSocialcomputingHybriddemocracy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper claims that algorithms can productively bridge large-scale online voting with face-to-face deliberation, and that doing so changes both process and outcomes in measurable ways. Three methods are tested in two real democratic settings: grouping deliberators by voting similarity (PCD), letting participants steer how much of a budget is decided by a fair-voting algorithm (Human-in-the-loop MES), and using opinion-space maps plus before/after voting to guide discussion (ReadTheRoom). Field results show heterogeneous deliberation tracks individual voting more closely, homogeneous deliberation feels easier and more preference-aligned, equal-shares budgeting is seen as fair while preserving a proportionality guarantee, and structured deliberation lowers polarisation on divisive statements. A sympathetic reader would take the paper as evidence that voting data can be reused, not just aggregated, to make participatory decision-making more representative and trusted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is threefold: (1) PCD's Radial Clustering, which projects participants' approval votes into a two-dimensional PCA opinion space and divides the angular space into balanced 'pizza-slice' sectors to create preference-homogeneous and later heterogeneous groups; (2) Human-in-the-loop MES, the Method of Equal Shares algorithm (each voter gets an equal budget share, projects are selected when affordable by supporters' capped shares) wrapped in an interactive interface where participants adjust the algorithmic budget share in real time and may subsequently adjust project budgets; (3) ReadTheRoom, which uses Polis's opinion mapping to identify divisive statements, builds a visual decision tree from opinion groups, and runs paired before/after Likert voting on those statements to quantify polarisation via the Bimodality Coefficient and consensus via 1/(1+SD). These three mechanisms carry the argument that voting data can structure deliberation, that algorithmic fairness can be made human-controllable, and that opinion shifts can be tracked and guided.

What would settle it

Compute silhouette scores for the Radial Clustering assignments in the original high-dimensional preference space rather than the two-dimensional projection; if the assignments show near-zero or negative silhouette values there, or if a placebo re-randomisation of participants into 'homogeneous' and 'heterogeneous' groups reproduces the same ease/alignment differences, the PCD effect would be indistinguishable from group-size or facilitation artefacts. Similarly, a delayed re-administered survey of vTaiwan participants weeks after the workshop would settle whether the reduced Bimodality Coefficients persist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that voting and deliberation are complementary, and that computational methods can join them: PCD uses pre-deliberation votes to form balanced homogeneous and heterogeneous groups, producing different and measurable deliberation dynamics; Human-in-the-loop MES extends the Method of Equal Shares so participants decide how much of the budget the algorithm decides, preserving MES's proportionality while building trust; ReadTheRoom maps the online opinion space onto a decision tree and uses spectrum-based before/after voting to make opinion shifts visible and reduce polarisation. In KK24, heterogeneous group decisions closely mirrored individual online votes (Pearson r=0.678, p=0.000527) while homogeneous groups were rated easier by 83% of participants and more preference-aligned by 76%; in vTaiwan, Bimodality Coefficients fell below the 0.555 polarisation threshold for all three initially-divisive statements after deliberation. The paper argues these structured integrations make deliberation more inclusive of niche interests while keeping the breadth of voting.

Load-bearing premise

The PCD results rest on the assumption that Radial Clustering on a two-dimensional PCA projection actually groups participants by genuine preference similarity; with a silhouette score of 0.238 and the authors' own concession that the projection flattens preference complexity, the observed contrasts between homogeneous and heterogeneous rounds could partly reflect noise or facilitator behaviour rather than true preference homogeneity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In processes like KK24, using voting data to form homogeneous-then-heterogeneous deliberation groups can surface niche projects that simple voting would miss, while later heterogeneous rounds keep outcomes broadly aligned with voter preferences.
Offering participants a visible, adjustable budget share for MES can produce near-unanimous endorsement of the voting-to-deliberation ratio and of the algorithm's fairness, without vetoing algorithmic selections.
Structured deliberations built on opinion-space maps can move divisive statements below the bimodality polarisation threshold and increase consensus indices in a single session, even with modest participation.
Fair voting methods like MES can fund more projects per voter and lower the Gini coefficient of budget allocation relative to the common Greedy method under the same budget.
These bridging methods transfer across settings: the same algorithmic ideas were implemented in a Swiss cultural budgeting assembly and a Taiwanese AI-regulation roundtable, suggesting generalizability to other participatory fora.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A direct implication the authors leave implicit: PCD's homogeneous-first, heterogeneous-second sequence could be reordered or iterated, and the framework predicts that each reordering produces a different trade-off between niche representation and outcome alignment; this is testable with the same clustering pipeline.
The ReadTheRoom effect on polarisation is only measured immediately after a single session; an obvious extension is a follow-up survey weeks later to test whether the convergence is durable or a temporary conformity effect — a concern the authors themselves flag.
The human-in-the-loop interface could be extended beyond budget share to let participants steer which fairness criterion (e.g., Greedy vs MES) is used, connecting to the broader question of algorithmic legitimacy as a function of control, not just outcome.
One unresolved tension: if post-selection budget adjustments compromise MES's proportionality guarantee, as the authors concede, the method is more accurately described as a deliberation-supported heuristic than a strict fairness mechanism; formalising those adjustments as preference updates is a natural next step.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is a real field report from two actual participatory processes, and the authors are transparent about their roles and limits. The three methods—PCD, Human-in-the-loop MES, ReadTheRoom—are not new algorithms in a strict sense; they are thoughtful recombinations of existing tools (PCA, k-means, MES, Polis, before/after voting). That is still a useful contribution: civic-tech practitioners get a concrete playbook. KK24 gives a real budget, real projects, real participants; vTaiwan gives an actual policy deliberation on AI regulation. They share data, acknowledge their dual roles, and flag their own limitations in Section 6.2. That honesty is earned.

The soft spot is the PCD evidence. Radial clustering in 2D PCA space uses only angular position and discards distance from the center, so preference intensity is ignored. The reported silhouette score (0.238) is weak, and Section 6.2 concedes the projection flattens preference complexity. That means the homogeneous-vs-heterogeneous contrasts—the r=0.678 correlation, the ease/alignment self-reports, the project cost differences—cannot be cleanly attributed to preference homogeneity. Homogeneous always came first, so ordering and facilitator effects are confounds. Samples are small (N=35 for KK24, 44 for vTaiwan), there is no control group, and many significance tests run without correction. ReadTheRoom has the cleanest before/after design, but even there only one mean change reaches p<0.05, and the BC decreases are consistent but on small n.

None of this is fatal. The paper does not overclaim; it explicitly presents results as preliminary. The real value is in the documented practice: the procedures are concrete, the data are public, and the authors candidly discuss what could be driving their observations. The right framing is "here is what we did and what we saw," not "we proved algorithms improve deliberation." A serious referee should engage because these methods are already being used in real democratic processes, and the design details matter for anyone replicating or adapting them.

Recommendation: send it out. It deserves referee time, with the expectation of major revisions—especially around clustering validity, ordering effects, and multiple comparisons. I would not cite it for causal claims, but I would cite it as a documented field application.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents three algorithmic methods to bridge online voting and face-to-face deliberation: Preference-based Clustering for Deliberation (PCD), Human-in-the-loop Method of Equal Shares (MES), and the ReadTheRoom deliberation method. These are evaluated in two real-world case studies: the Kultur Komitee 2024 (KK24) budgeting assembly (N=35) and a vTaiwan AI-regulation workshop (N=44). The reported results include: heterogeneous deliberation outcomes correlating with pre-deliberation voting (r=0.678, p=0.000527), homogeneous deliberation being rated easier and more preference-aligned (83%/76% vs 65%/55%), MES distributing a budget more fairly than a Greedy baseline, and ReadTheRoom deliberation decreasing the Bimodality Coefficient across all five debated statements. The authors provide public datasets and code and candidly discuss limitations in Section 6.2.

Significance. If the causal claims held, the paper would offer practical recipes for integrating voting and deliberation, with implications for participatory budgeting and deliberative mini-publics. The strongest assets are the genuine field deployment, the public datasets/code, and the explicit acknowledgment of threats to validity in Section 6.2. However, the current evidence is predominantly descriptive or correlational; the causal language in Sections 5 and 6.1 goes beyond what the study design can support. The contribution is best framed as context-rich design insights rather than a validated test of the methods' effects.

major comments (4)

[Section 3.1.3, Table 3, Figure 1] The homogeneous-versus-heterogeneous contrast is the load-bearing evidence for PCD, but the manuscript does not establish that Radial Clustering actually produces preference-homogeneous groups. The reported silhouette score of 0.238 indicates weak cluster structure, and the assignment rule uses only the angular coordinate theta = arctan((PC2_i - mean)/(PC1_i - mean)), discarding radial distance. Consequently, a participant with weak, mixed preferences near the center can be grouped with a participant on the same ray with strong, focused preferences, while two participants with nearly identical preference profiles but different intensity can be split across sectors. Section 6.2 concedes that the two-dimensional PCA projection 'inevitably flattens the complexity of participant preferences,' yet no validation is provided that the resulting groups are similar in the original high-dimensional voting space. Without such validation, the alignment, ease, and cost differences reported in Sections 5.1.1-5.1.4 cannot be attributed to preference homogeneity.
[Section 3.1.3, Section 5.1] The two deliberation rounds were not counterbalanced: homogeneous groups always met first and heterogeneous groups second (step 3 of Section 3.1.3). Any observed difference between the rounds—the voting-deliberation correlation (r=0.678 vs r=0.366), the ease and alignment ratings (83%/76% vs 65%/55%), or the project-cost patterns in Table 1—could be due to order, fatigue, facilitator behavior, or learning effects rather than group composition. There is no control condition or washout. The causal phrasing in Sections 5.1.1-5.1.4 and 6.1 ('suggests that using Radial clustering... creates a perceivable difference', 'heterogeneous deliberation funds more costly projects') should be tempered to associational claims, or the authors should provide additional evidence, such as a reversed-order implementation or a within-subject design with balanced order.
[Figure 3, Table 2, Section 5.3.1] The paper reports a large number of significance tests without any multiple-comparison correction. In Figure 3, only one of the five demographic-group comparisons reaches p<0.05 (Age ≤33, p=0.047), and it would not survive a simple Bonferroni correction given the number of tests. In Table 2, only one of the five mean opinion changes is statistically significant (Statement 4), and the central polarisation-reduction claim rests on Bimodality Coefficient and Consensus Index changes for which no standard errors, confidence intervals, or significance tests are reported. With N=44 and five-point Likert items, the BC metric is highly sensitive to response distributions; the universal decrease in BC is suggestive but not by itself evidence of a robust effect. I request effect sizes and confidence intervals for the BC/CI changes and either explicit multiple-comparison control or an explicit statement that the analyses are exploratory.
[Section 5.2, Figure 8] The Human-in-the-loop MES evaluation does not support the causal claim that the method 'builds algorithmic trust' (Section 3.2.1). The MES-versus-Greedy comparison in Figure 8 is a retrospective computational baseline, not a field experiment, and the participant responses (62% 'Very fair', 81% supporting a 50:50 ratio) are single-group post-hoc ratings with no control or pre-measurement. The paper also notes in Section 6.2 that participants modified budgets after the MES calculation, potentially compromising the proportionality that the fairness claim is based on. Please distinguish clearly between (a) feasibility and participant acceptability, which the data support, and (b) causal effects on trust or perceived fairness, which the design cannot establish.

minor comments (6)

[Section 1.1.2] The roles of the authors are described inconsistently: Section 1.1.2 says 'The corresponding author offered the ReadTheRoom Deliberation method,' while Section 4 says 'the first author participated in the public deliberation workshops.' Please clarify which author held which role.
[Section 3.3.4] The Bimodality Coefficient formula is written as 'BC = skewness2+1 / kurtosis+3'; the standard formula is (skewness^2 + 1) / (kurtosis + 3). Please add the parentheses and verify the reference to Knapp (2007).
[Section 5.1.1, Figure 4] The sentence 'We also observed more groups using sticky notes as votes' references Figure 4, but the main text does not explain what the figure shows beyond that clause. Please expand the caption or add an explicit description in the text.
[Table 3] The column headers 'SS', 'BG', and 'OC' are not expanded in the table itself; the caption gives the meaning, but it would be clearer to add them directly to the header (e.g., 'Silhouette Score (SS)', 'Balanced Groups (BG)', 'Overlapping Clusters (OC)').
[References] References [39] and [40] appear to be the same paper (one entry contains a typo in the author name 'Hnggli'). Please deduplicate and provide a single correct citation.
[Section 6.2] Section 6.2 states that post-selection budget modifications 'potentially compromised MES's mathematical proportionality guarantees,' yet Section 5.2.2 presents the same modification step as a positive feature. The tension is real and should be discussed in the results, not only in the limitations.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the three contributions are empirical field evaluations; no prediction reduces by construction to its input, and the paper's self-citations are background motivation, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claims are empirical comparisons on field data rather than derivations from fitted parameters. PCD forms deliberation groups from PCA-based radial sectors and then measures correlations, alignment, self-reports, and cost patterns on independent deliberation outcomes; the clustering algorithm is selected by silhouette score (Table 3) and explicitly not fitted to the outcome measures. The MES versus Greedy comparison is a retrospective computational rerun of the same votes under equal budgets, and the fairness and agency claims rest on Gini coefficients and participant surveys, not on a parameter fitted to those outcomes; MES's proportionality guarantee is cited to external work [31], not to the authors' own prior results. ReadTheRoom's polarisation and consensus claims are computed from before-and-after Likert votes using standard metrics (BC, CI) with no fitted quantity. The self-citations to Yang et al. [39,40] are literature motivation and do not carry the derivation of any reported result. Acknowledged limitations (silhouette 0.238, 2D PCA flattening, post-MES budget modifications, possible conformity effects) are construct-validity and generalisability threats, not cases where an output is equivalent to an input by construction. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper does not introduce new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions. Its inventions are procedural: clustering-based group formation, an interface for adjusting algorithmic budget delegation, and a deliberation protocol. These are not entities in the ledger sense. The main free parameter is the group count, and the main unstated assumptions concern the validity of the preference data and the PCA projection, both acknowledged in the limitations.

free parameters (1)

Number of deliberation groups (k) = 6
Chosen by the KK24 organizing committee to obtain groups of 6-7 participants. All PCD comparisons depend on this count and on the sector-boundary adjustments that balance group sizes; a different k would change the clustering and potentially the observed round differences.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Approval votes from the pre-deliberation survey accurately represent participants' true preferences.
PCD and MES use these votes as ground truth for clustering and budget allocation. If votes are strategic, noisy, or incomplete, group formation and allocation results change. The paper does not validate the incentive compatibility of the approval-voting stage.
standard math The Method of Equal Shares guarantees proportionality under additive utilities.
The paper relies on the proportionality guarantee from Peters et al. [31] to claim fairness for Human-in-the-loop MES. The MES algorithm is a known formal result, but the paper's fairness claims inherit its assumptions.
domain assumption The two-dimensional PCA projection preserves enough preference structure for meaningful clustering.
Radial Clustering uses angles in the PCA plane. Section 6.2 acknowledges that the projection flattens complexity, and the silhouette score is only 0.238. If the projection distorts preference distances, the produced groups are not truly homogeneous, undermining the PCD interpretation.
domain assumption Self-reported Likert responses accurately reflect actual decision-making ease and preference representation.
The participant-experience metrics (Figure 6, Figure 15) rely on self-report without anchoring against independent measures. Social desirability and demand effects could inflate positive ratings.
domain assumption The before-after Likert voting in ReadTheRoom measures opinion change without reactivity or conformity bias.
The visible spectrum-based display may induce participants to move toward perceived group norms. With no control group, the observed opinion shifts cannot be attributed solely to deliberation.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Bridging Voting and Deliberation with Algorithms: Field Insights from vTaiwan and Kultur Komitee." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4R7JZ2QO

@misc{pith2026250205017,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Bridging Voting and Deliberation with Algorithms: Field Insights from vTaiwan and Kultur Komitee},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4R7JZ2QO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.05017}
}

read the original abstract

Democratic processes increasingly aim to integrate large-scale voting with face-to-face deliberation, addressing the challenge of reconciling individual preferences with collective decision-making. This work introduces new methods that use algorithms and computational tools to bridge online voting with face-to-face deliberation, tested in two real-world scenarios: Kultur Komitee 2024 (KK24) and vTaiwan. These case studies highlight the practical applications and impacts of the proposed methods. We present three key contributions: (1) Preference-based Clustering for Deliberation (PCD), which enables both in-depth and broad discussions in deliberative settings by computing homogeneous and heterogeneous group compositions with balanced and adjustable group sizes; (2) Human-in-the-loop MES, a practical method that enhances the Method of Equal Shares (MES) algorithm with real-time digital feedback. This builds algorithmic trust by giving participants full control over how much decision-making is delegated to the voting aggregation algorithm as compared to deliberation; and (3) the ReadTheRoom deliberation method, which uses opinion space mapping to identify agreement and divergence, along with spectrum-based preference visualisation to track opinion shifts during deliberation. This approach enhances transparency by clarifying collective sentiment and fosters collaboration by encouraging participants to engage constructively with differing perspectives. By introducing these actionable frameworks, this research extends in-person deliberation with scalable digital methods that address the complexities of modern decision-making in participatory processes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.05017 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** Votes vs Deliberation Points in Homogeneous [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Alignment Changes Across Homogeneous and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (9 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Voting emerged from deliberations In the heterogeneous deliberation round, more participants started using the sticky notes to indicate their individual support for the project and subsequently decide what projects they should select collectively as a group [PITH_FU…

**Figure 6.** Figure 6: Participant responses on the ease of decision-making and alignment with preferences during the first [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: Real-time Human-in-the-loop MES results interface used during the KK24 workshop. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: Outcome comparison of MES (mes190k), as implemented in KK24, and a hypothetical Greedy Method baseline (grdy190k) under a budget constraint of 190,000 CHF. The left panel shows the number of projects won per voter, and the right panel shows the budget allocation per vo…

**Figure 9.** Figure 9: Screenshots of the Human-in-the-loop MES interface used in the KK24 workshop for participants to clearly [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_9.png]

**Figure 10.** Figure 10: Participant responses to how the ratio between voting, calculated using the MES algorithm, and deliberation [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_10.png]

**Figure 11.** Figure 11: Participant responses to the fairness of the Method of Equal Shares. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]

**Figure 12.** Figure 12: Translated Decision Tree Screenshot from the vTaiwan AI Regulation Deliberation Workshop on December [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

**Figure 15.** Figure 15: Survey Responses from the vTaiwan Deliberation. This diagram shows participant responses to six survey [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

[1]

Karpowitz, and Chad Raphael

Carolyne Abdullah, Christopher F. Karpowitz, and Chad Raphael. 2016. Affinity Groups, Enclave Deliberation, and Equity.Journal of Public Delib- eration12, 2 (2016), Article 6. https://delibdemjournal.org/article/id/530/

work page 2016
[2]

Barandiaran, and Vicenç Gómez

Pablo Aragón, Andreas Kaltenbrunner, Antonio Calleja-López, Andrés Pereira, Arnau Monterde, Xabier E. Barandiaran, and Vicenç Gómez. 2017. Deliberative Platform Design: The case study of the online discussions in Decidim Barcelona

work page 2017
[3]

Haris Aziz and Nisarg Shah. 2020. Participatory budgeting: Models and approaches.Pathways Between Social Science and Computational Social Science: Theories, Methods, and Interpretations(2020), 215–236

work page 2020
[4]

2016.Handbook of computational social choice

Felix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, Jérôme Lang, and Ariel D Procaccia. 2016.Handbook of computational social choice. Cambridge University Press

2016
[5]

Markus Brill and Jannik Peters. 2023. Robust and Verifiable Proportion- ality Axioms for Multiwinner Voting. InProceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation(London, United Kingdom) (EC ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 301. https://doi.org/10.1145/3580507.3597785

work page arXiv 2023
[6]

Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren

Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren

work page
[7]

Simone Chambers and Mark E. Warren. 2023. Why Deliberation and Voting Belong Together.Res Publica(2023), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158- 023-09635-x

work page doi:10.1007/s11158- 2023
[8]

Stephen Chaudoin, Jacob N Shapiro, and Dustin Tingley. 2017. Revolution- izing Teaching and Research with a Structured Debate Platform.Journal of Political Science58 (2017), 1064–1082

work page 2017

Show all 50 references

[9]

Jonathan Davies and Rob Procter. 2020. Online platforms of public partici- pation: a deliberative democracy or a delusion?. InProceedings of the 13th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. ACM, Athens Greece, 746–753

2020
[10]

Brandon Fain, Ashish Goel, and Kamesh Munagala. 2016. The Core of the Participatory Budgeting Problem. InWeb and Internet Economics. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-54110-4_27

2016 doi
[11]

Piotr Faliszewski, Jarosław Flis, Dominik Peters, Grzegorz Pierczyński, Piotr Skowron, Dariusz Stolicki, Stanisław Szufa, and Nimrod Talmon
[12]

Andrea Felicetti. 2021. Learning from democratic practices: New perspec- tives in institutional design.The Journal of Politics83, 4 (2021), 1589–1601

2021
[13]

James Fishkin, Nikhil Garg, Lodewijk Gelauff, Ashish Goel, Kamesh Mu- nagala, Alice Siu, and Sravya Yandamuri. 2019. Deliberative Democracy with the Online Deliberation Platform. InThe 7th AAAI Conference on Human Computation and Crowdsourcing

2019
[14]

James S. Fishkin. 1991.Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j. ctt1dt006v

1991
[15]

Nancy Fraser. 1990. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the Critique of Actually Existing Democracy.Social Text25/26 (1990), 56–80

1990
[16]

John Gastil and Michael Broghammer. 2021. Linking Theories of Moti- vation, Game Mechanics, and Public Deliberation to Design an Online System for Participatory Budgeting.Political Studies69, 1 (2021), 7–25

2021
[17]

Frank Hendriks and Anks Michels. 2024. Exploring the Democratic Merits of Hybrid Democratic Innovation. Combining Deliberation and Voting in Participatory Budgeting New Style.International Journal of Public Administration0, 0 (2024), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2024...

2024
[18]

Frank Hendriks and Charlotte Wagenaar. 2023. The Deliberative Refer- endum: An Idea Whose Time has Come?Administration & Society55, 3 (2023), 569–590. https://doi.org/10.1177/00953997221140898

2023 doi
[19]

Anatol Itten and Niek Mouter. 2022. When Digital Mass Participation Meets Citizen Deliberation: Combining Mini- and Maxi-Publics in Cli- mate Policy-Making.Sustainability14, 8 (2022). https://doi.org/10.3390/ su14084656

2022
[20]

Karpowitz and Chad Raphael

Christopher F. Karpowitz and Chad Raphael. 2014.Delib- eration, Democracy, and Civic Forums: Improving Equality and Publicity. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/deliberation-democracy- and-civic-forums/53A4BB5D4E3BA1042BD0CB361F04D082

2014
[21]

Mark Klein. 2017. Towards Crowd-Scale Deliberation.SSRN Electronic Journal(2017)

2017
[22]

Thomas R Knapp. 2007. Bimodality revisited.Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods6, 1 (2007), 3

2007
[23]

Christian List. 2018. Democratic Deliberation and Social Choice: A Review. InThe Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford University Press, 462–489

2018
[24]

Gerry Mackie. 2018. Deliberation and Voting Entwined. InThe Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford University Press, 217–236

2018
[25]

James MacQueen et al. 1967. Some methods for classification and analysis of multivariate observations. InProceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability, Vol. 1. Oakland, CA, USA, 281– 297

1967
[26]

Malinen and Pasi Fränti

Mikko I. Malinen and Pasi Fränti. 2014. Balanced K-Means for Cluster- ing. InStructural, Syntactic, and Statistical Pattern Recognition. Vol. 8621. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 32–41

2014
[27]

Jane Mansbridge. 1994. Using Power/Fighting Power.Constellations1, 1 (1994), 53–73. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8675.1994.tb00004.x

1994
[28]

Jane Mansbridge. 2010. Deliberative Polling as the Gold Standard.The Good Society19, 1 (2010), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.5325/goodsociety.19.1.0055

2010 doi
[29]

Ank Michels. 2011. Innovations in democratic governance: how does citizen participation contribute to a better democracy?International Review of Administrative Sciences77, 2 (2011), 275–293

2011
[30]

Anna Mikhaylovskaya. 2024. Enhancing Deliberation with Digital Demo- cratic Innovations.Philosophy & Technology37, 1 (March 2024), 3

2024
[31]

Dominik Peters, Grzegorz Pierczynski, and Piotr Skowron
[32]

Ruth Shortall, Anatol Itten, Michiel Van Der Meer, Pradeep Murukannaiah, and Catholijn Jonker. 2022. Reason against the machine? Future directions for mass online deliberation.Frontiers in Political Science4 (Oct. 2022), 946589

2022
[33]

Christopher Small, Michael Bjorkegren, Timo Erkkilä, Lynette Shaw, and Colin Megill. 2021. Polis: Scaling deliberation by mapping high dimen- sional opinion spaces.Recerca: revista de pensament i anàlisi26, 2 (2021)

2021
[34]

Cass R Sunstein. 2017. Deliberative trouble? Why groups go to extremes. In Multi-party dispute resolution, democracy and decision-making. Routledge, 65–95

2017
[35]

Yu-Shan Tseng. 2022. Algorithmic empowerment: A comparative ethnog- raphy of two open-source algorithmic platforms–Decide Madrid and vTai- wan.Big Data & Society9, 2 (2022), 20539517221123505

2022
[36]

Gustavo Umbelino, Matin Yarmand, Samuel Blake, Vivian Ta, Amy Luo, and Steven P. Dow. 2021. ProtoTeams: Supporting Team Dating in Co- Located Settings.Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW3 (2021), 273:1–273:27. https://doi.org/10.1145/3434182

2021 doi
[37]

E.G. Weyl, A. Tang, and Community. 2024.Plurality: The Future of Collab- orative Technology and Democracy. Radicalxchange. https://books.google. ch/books?id=-ye20AEACAAJ

2024
[38]

Irene Witting, Charlotte Wagenaar, and Frank Hendriks. 2025. Improving referendums with deliberative democracy: A systematic literature review. International Political Science Review46, 1 (2025), 40–56

2025
[39]

Yang, Carina I

Joshua C. Yang, Carina I. Hausladen, Dominik Peters, Evangelos Pournaras, Regula Hänggli Fricker, and Dirk Helbing. 2024. Designing Digital Voting Systems for Citizens: Achieving Fairness and Legitimacy in Participatory Budgeting

2024
[40]

Yang, Carina I

Joshua C. Yang, Carina I. Hausladen, Dominik Peters, Evangelos Pournaras, Regula Hnggli Fricker, and Dirk Helbing. 2024. Designing Digital Voting Systems for Citizens: Achieving Fairness and Legitimacy in Participatory Budgeting.Digit. Gov.: Res. Pract.5, 3, Article 26 (Sept. ...

2024 doi
[41]

Die Schöpfung

Amy X. Zhang, Lea Verou, and David Karger. 2017. Wikum: Bridging Dis- cussion Forums and Wikis Using Recursive Summarization. InProceedings Joshua C. Yang and Fynn Bachmann of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing. ACM, Portland Or...

2017
[45]

The discussion today helped me learn new perspectives
[46]

I believe my viewpoints were expressed in today's discussion
[47]

My viewpoints have changed during this deliberation process
[48]

I think using real-time voting has appropriately allowed participants with differing opinions to express their views
[49]

I believe that combining deliberation with voting makes the presentation of the deliberation outcomes more convincing
[50]

1.60 1.23 0.63 1.57 1.47 1.13 Figure 15: Survey Responses from the vTaiwan Deliberation

Today's discussion method enabled us to reach a more constructive consensus. 1.60 1.23 0.63 1.57 1.47 1.13 Figure 15: Survey Responses from the vTaiwan Deliberation. This diagram shows participant responses to six survey questions after deliberation. The vertical axis lists th...
[2018]

InThe Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy

Deliberative Democracy: An Introduction. InThe Oxford Handbook of Deliberative Democracy. Oxford University Press, xxii–32
[2021]

InNeurIPS

Proportional Participatory Budgeting with Additive Utili- ties. InNeurIPS. https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper/2021/file/ 69f8ea31de0c00502b2ae571fbab1f95-Paper.pdf

2021
[2023]

InProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Macao, P.R.China)(IJCAI ’23)

Participatory budgeting: data, tools, and analysis. InProceedings of the Thirty-Second International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (Macao, P.R.China)(IJCAI ’23). Article 297, 8 pages

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Karpowitz, and Chad Raphael

Carolyne Abdullah, Christopher F. Karpowitz, and Chad Raphael. 2016. Affinity Groups, Enclave Deliberation, and Equity.Journal of Public Delib- eration12, 2 (2016), Article 6. https://delibdemjournal.org/article/id/530/

work page 2016

[2] [2]

Barandiaran, and Vicenç Gómez

Pablo Aragón, Andreas Kaltenbrunner, Antonio Calleja-López, Andrés Pereira, Arnau Monterde, Xabier E. Barandiaran, and Vicenç Gómez. 2017. Deliberative Platform Design: The case study of the online discussions in Decidim Barcelona

work page 2017

[3] [3]

Haris Aziz and Nisarg Shah. 2020. Participatory budgeting: Models and approaches.Pathways Between Social Science and Computational Social Science: Theories, Methods, and Interpretations(2020), 215–236

work page 2020

[4] [4]

2016.Handbook of computational social choice

Felix Brandt, Vincent Conitzer, Ulle Endriss, Jérôme Lang, and Ariel D Procaccia. 2016.Handbook of computational social choice. Cambridge University Press

2016

[5] [5]

Markus Brill and Jannik Peters. 2023. Robust and Verifiable Proportion- ality Axioms for Multiwinner Voting. InProceedings of the 24th ACM Conference on Economics and Computation(London, United Kingdom) (EC ’23). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 301. https://doi.org/10.1145/3580507.3597785

work page arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren

Andre Bächtiger, John S. Dryzek, Jane Mansbridge, and Mark Warren

work page

[7] [7]

Simone Chambers and Mark E. Warren. 2023. Why Deliberation and Voting Belong Together.Res Publica(2023), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11158- 023-09635-x

work page doi:10.1007/s11158- 2023

[8] [8]

Stephen Chaudoin, Jacob N Shapiro, and Dustin Tingley. 2017. Revolution- izing Teaching and Research with a Structured Debate Platform.Journal of Political Science58 (2017), 1064–1082

work page 2017