Problems and Purpose

Direct democracy has often been regarded as a vehicle for majoritarianism which rarely encourages considered judgement among voters[1]. In an effort to address this deliberative deficit, the Swiss National Science Foundation (SNSF), led by Professor Nenad Stojanović, set up an Oregon-inspired Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR) in Sion. By focusing on capacity-building, this pilot project was expected to enhance voters’ understanding of the popular initiative and boost turnout rates.

Background History and Context

In 2017, 2.2 million Swiss citizens were living in rented accommodation[2] and the share of non-profit housing cooperatives amounted to a mere 5.1%[3]. Against this backdrop, the Swiss Tenants’ Association launched a people’s initiative for ‘more affordable housing’ in August 2015. The initiative’s main demand was that at least 10% of newly built homes should be owned by social housing partners. However, it also called for Swiss government and semi-state bodies to give preference to cantons and municipalities when selling off land holdings, as well as emphasizing that energy upgrading grants should only be awarded to projects that do not involve the loss of moderately-priced housing stock. Within 13 months, the initiative had attracted the support of 105,000 eligible voters[4], achieving the necessary amount of signatures. It was put to voters across the country on the 9th February, 2020.

The Demoscan CIR took place three months prior to this vote and was directly inspired by the process model institutionalized in Oregon. In fact, the method had never been replicated in Switzerland prior to this. While the Oregon CIR bears resemblance to other minipublics such as Planning Cells and Citizens’ Juries, it goes beyond their objectives of facilitating considered judgement within a specific group[5]. It focuses on directly influencing the wider electorate by providing them with information written by fellow citizens, rather than interest parties. Thus, researchers from the University of Geneva were specifically interested in assessing the method’s innovative potential and capacity to impact voters within a Swiss context[6].

The demoscan team regarded the municipality of Sion as an appropriate site for the pilot project because local authorities had already demonstrated a preference for greater citizen participation channels[7]. For example, forms of participatory democracy based on self-selection, such as rencontres citoyennes[8], had already been established. Thus, residents were expected to be more inclined to participate, contributing to greater logistical efficiency.

Organizing, Supporting, and Funding Entities

The demoscan team, based at the University of Geneva and funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation, involved a core research team of 6, an advisory board of 5, and a group of 7 volunteers[9]. Cato Leonard, the co-founder of G1000 in Belgium, was hired as head moderator and assisted by Antoine Andre. The team also received support from Healthy Democracy, a non-profit organization which has overseen numerous CIRs in Oregon[10]. The entity’s process expert, Linn Davis, helped to apply contextual adaptations where needed so that the CIR was appropriate for Sion.

As the organizers wanted to use the real register of inhabitants for random selection, garnering municipal support was crucial. Despite initial concerns regarding the feasibility of this, the mayor of Sion expressed significant interest in the project’s potential to enhance dialogue and boost turnout rates. After the team presented the project to the nine-member executive of Sion in May 2019, the executive municipal council not only agreed to mandate the citizens’ panel, but also provided financial support for printing and postal services. In addition to this, the Swiss Federal Housing Office delegated one of their employees from the domain of subsidized housing to provide a balanced presentation on the popular initiative. The Federal Chancellery also provided the organizers with information on possible topics of the popular vote prior to the official announcement in October[11].

Participant Recruitment and Selection

In order for the panel to reflect the socio-demographic composition of Sion’s eligible voters, participants were recruited through a two-stage process of random selection[12]. The first stage took place in the municipality’s town hall on the 5th August 2019. The basis for the random selection sample was 20,961, reflecting the number of eligible voters (21,090) particularly well[13]. From this basis, municipality officials produced a randomly selected list of 2,000 citizens and distributed invitation letters to them on the 14th of August. The invitation letter consisted of a cover letter, a two-page explanation of the CIR, and a short questionnaire. Incentive mechanisms were used to encourage participation, with each panelist receiving 500 Swiss francs and reimbursement for transportation. Financial support for childcare arrangements and four free lunches were also offered.[14]

Overall, 205 individuals expressed an interest in participating[15], equating to 10.2% of those who received the invitation letter. As is often the case with recruitment processes involving self-selection[16], skewed demographics were noted within the group of first-stage respondents. Individuals with higher levels of formal education and stronger levels of political interest displayed greater willingness to participate. Right-wing citizens and those over the age of 65 were also under-represented[17]. However, the demoscan team used stratified sortition in the second stage of recruitment to reduce such imbalances. On the 17th September, all 205 citizens were invited to a public session which would involve the final selection of the CIR panel. During this session, Sortition Foundation was used to draw two panels of 20 members from the sample of 205. These panels were then assigned a colour, either red or yellow, and the youngest individual in the room was asked to pick one of two coloured bars out of a non-transparent bag. The colour of the bar selected determined the composition of the final panel[18].

Methods and Tools Used

The overarching method employed by organizers was the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, involving a citizens’ jury which deliberates on a ballot initiative and then produces a summary statement for fellow citizens. A range of tools were employed, including conversation guidelines, varying plenary discussions, small group deliberation, professional facilitation, Q&As, and expert presentations. A secret vote on the topic of the initiative was also held, however the results only served to provide researchers with an idea of how participation influenced the panelist’s opinions. Thus, no details regarding this vote were included in the summary statement. Such techniques are typically used for the Oregon model as they promote capacity-building and create open space for deliberation[19]. In line with Smith[20], horizontal communication facilitates engagement with a ‘diversity of social perspectives’ and therefore acts as a buttress for considered judgement. It should be recognised, however, that the time demands related to these CIR techniques do threaten levels of efficiency and inclusiveness. Inevitably, not all citizens are able to commit to the longer periods of participation required for high-quality deliberation. While the demoscan team overcame this limitation by offering childcare support and transport reimbursement, doing so still weakened levels of efficiency by heightening the logistical costs of the project.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

This CIR took place over two consecutive weekends. On the first day, participants were introduced to the initiative through expert presentations. On the second day, three Q&A sessions were carried out, two with expert panels and one with representatives of yes/no campaigns. The Saturday of the following weekend involved fact-checking, small-group deliberation, and information-filtering sessions. Two panels, each made up of three experts, also gave presentations and answered any additional queries that the participants had. Daily questionnaires allowed the participants to share feedback on the sessions. The results indicate that facilitation was effective, with 18 out of 19 panelists reporting to be ‘very satisfied’ with the neutrality of the moderators[21]. The average evaluations regarding the consideration of deeper values and concerns also scored at least 4 out of 5[22]. The quality of deliberation was also regarded as particularly high. For example, when asked whether they found themselves considering deeper values and how the initiative would impact other citizens, the average score was 4 out of 5[23]. When asked whether they were angered by other panelists at any stage, respondents also provided an average score of 1.05 out of 5[24]. Thus, the facilitators and techniques they used seem to have served their function of encouraging thoughtful judgement and guiding mutual discussion in an unbiased manner.

The fourth and final day was dedicated to the writing of the summary statement, which outlined the key facts surrounding the initiative, as well as its pros and cons. The information had been prepared in advance by the organizers and the panelists were responsible for selecting, ranking, and editing this information. They also had to provide a short statement on why they regarded each included point as relevant and important. At the end, a secret vote [See previous section] was held and three participants were randomly chosen to participate in a press conference. This conference took place on the 9th January 2020 and involved a presentation of the summary statement to the media. The three participants also shared their experience of the process. On the 16th January 2020, the CIR statement was sent to all eligible voters in Sion.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

With regards to the objective of capacity-building, the demoscan team was particularly successful. Prior to deliberation, panelists were asked how they felt about the initiative, with 37 percent of them stating that they were unsure what to vote for. However, by the fourth day, all participants felt that they could vote with confidence as they had developed a solid opinion on the matter. When asked whether they had learned enough to make an informed decision in the self-evaluation surveys, the panelists provided an average score of 4.7 out of 5[25]. They also expressed an appreciation for the opportunity to play an active role in politics[26], underlining positive levels of participants’ internal efficacy.

In order to measure the capacity-building impact of the panel’s summary statement, an experimental survey involving 1159 citizens was carried out[27]. In comparison to those who only read a short text on the citizens’ panel’s proceedings, voters who read the entire summary statement scored significantly higher on their intention to vote on the initiative, as well as the knowledge-index. With regards to turnout, positive results can also be noted. In 2018, the average turnout rate for ballot initiatives was 50.28% in Valais[28]. In 2019, it was 36.34%[29]. Thus, the fact that 67.1% of the cantonal population voted on the ballot initiative for affordable housing[30] indicates a significant increase in participation. Of course, these figures should be interpreted with caution as the sample sizes of the demoscan surveys were not substantial enough to reveal any significant correlations between the summary statement and turnout[31]. Even so, the fact that the statement was found to increase the intention to vote is certainly an encouraging sign. It should also be noted that the impact of this mini-public went beyond immediate deliberation and capacity-building. Numerous municipal and cantonal authorities, as well as associations, expressed a desire to co-organize more CIRs of this kind. In fact, the demoscan team is currently in the process of extending the Sion experience to the cantonal level, through a Citizen Forum in Geneva.

Analysis and Lessons Learned

In order to systematically evaluate the strengths and limitations of this CIR, the analytical framework established by Smith[32] shall be employed. In lieu of a deductive approach, which requires commitment to one specific model of democracy, Smith adopts an ecumenical perspective and examines six key democratic goods: inclusiveness, popular control, considered judgement, transparency, efficiency, and transferability. Thus, through this framework, the concerns of different theoretical positions are integrated.

In terms of inclusion, this CIR was particularly successful. Stratified sampling facilitated the organizers’ capacity to convene a panel which acted as a ‘microcosm of the wider public’[33]. By achieving demographic representation, traditional ‘differentials of presence’[34], which tend to skew agendas against the interests of other groups, were consequently minimised. Of course, as mentioned previously [See section 3], an element of self-selection bias was inevitable in this CIR as participation was not obligatory. While this could have negatively impacted demographic representation, the demoscan team overcame imbalances by employing a multi-stage approach to random selection, with the second stage involving stratified sortition. With regards to the invitations used for recruitment, citizens could reply through an online questionnaire or by letter. In turn, the risk of a ‘digital divide’[35] reinforcing existing participation differentials was minimised. Incentive mechanisms also contributed to greater levels of inclusiveness by facilitating the participation of individuals from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Furthermore, it is worth noting that women have been shown to contribute more frequently when meetings are carried out in smaller sizes[36]. Thus, in conjunction with the fact that gender imbalances were eradicated in this CIR, the use of small-group deliberation was an important technique for its inclusiveness. Indeed, survey responses underscore the success of the demoscan team in creating a comfortable environment; when asked whether they felt that they could speak openly, panelists provided an average score of 4.26 out of 5.[37]

While the organizers initially planned to invite all residents of Sion to participate, including those above the age of 16 and foreigners, the municipality decided that only enfranchised citizens of Sion would be involved in the CIR[38]. The justification for this was that the summary statement would only be sent to eligible voters. However, considering that foreigners make up 27.8 percent of Sion’s population[39], it is clear that involving them in the process would have facilitated greater levels of inclusion.

Due to the capacity-building and informative purposes of this mini-public, its potential to buttress popular control was rather limited. Opportunities to directly impact policy-making were essentially non-existent. It is true that, as the proposal was a ballot initiative brought forward by citizens, the policy-making influence of the population was already inherent in the process. However, other aspects of the CIR still reflected weak levels of popular control, such as the fact that the information for the summary statements was prepared in advance by the organizers. Space for creative thinking and agenda-setting powers would have been stronger had the panel produced the summary statement independently. Of course, a trade-off between democratic goods is inevitable. Allowing the participants to produce the statement without pre-prepared points would have required more time and, as a result, levels of efficiency could have been threatened.

The techniques employed by the demoscan team contributed to strong levels of considered judgement throughout. Non-partisan, fact-based presentations were used, reflecting the procedural criteria outlined by Smith[40] which emphasizes the importance of substantive, comprehensive, balanced, and well-informed discussions. The incorporation of multi-way interaction also allowed participants to collaborate both vertically with the expert speakers and horizontally among themselves, encouraging the generation of an ‘output of interest’[41]. Such interaction will have also facilitated an ‘enlarged mentality’[42] by allowing participants to receive opinions from a variety of individuals. While mini-publics have often been criticised for issues related to the ‘bandwagon effect’[43], such as groupthink and polarization, this did not occur in the demoscan CIR. Survey questions exploring how the opinions of the participants changed over the course of the project are an indication of this. Prior to deliberation, eight participants stated that they did not know whether or not they agreed with the ballot proposal. By the fourth day, five confirmed that they did not support the ballot initiative and three confirmed that they supported it[44]. Thus, it would seem that panelists did not feel pressured to achieve conformity in the group. The survey responses mentioned previously further reinforce this, with participants displaying high levels of satisfaction when asked about horizontal communication and reflective judgement.

As underlined by Gastil et al.,[45] Oregonian citizens expressed dissatisfaction with the transparency of the Oregon CIRs which took place between 2010 and 2014. More specifically, they complained that there was a lack of information surrounding recruitment procedures, as well as funding and capacity-building methods used within the sessions. The demoscan team, in contrast, made clear efforts to buttress the legitimacy of the CIR in Sion. The process of random selection was not only carried out in public, with the presence of both representatives of the municipalities, as well as the demoscan team, but also shared online. It could, therefore, be scrutinised by all members of the public, including those residing abroad. In order to ensure that participants were clear about their expectations and roles, the research team also organized a public session to clarify the criteria for the final selection, funding details, and the CIR procedure. Once again, it was recorded and made accessible to the public online. In accordance with Gastil and Knoblock[46], achieving a robust public information campaign is crucial for legitimacy. This was clearly achieved, with the mini-public receiving extensive coverage in French and German, as well as Italian and English[47]. The demoscan website acted as an additional source of information where citizens could monitor the development of the project. Thus, it is clear that the demoscan team succeeded in achieving strong levels of transparency.

It is true that the efficiency of this mini-public was limited to a certain extent by the financial demands related to random sampling, reimbursement, and professional facilitation. The fact that deliberation took place over two consecutive weekends also meant that it was time-consuming for those involved. However, it would be reductionist to assume that this indicates low levels of efficiency without considering the cost-benefit ratio of the CIR. Firstly, the drop-out rate was extremely low, with only one participant leaving halfway through due to personal circumstances[48]. Secondly, the high satisfaction rates indicate that money spent on professional facilitation was worthwhile. Thirdly, the long-term societal benefits of the CIR are significant. In line with Thompson[49], by encouraging groups to reach conclusions together, mini-publics contribute to ‘moral progress’ and increase the potential of communities to reach agreements in the future. In other words, providing space for individuals to confront their personal horizons, and broaden them through deliberation, enhances their positions as public citizens. In fact, recent findings from Knobloch et al.,[50] indicate that CIRs have an ‘emanating effect’ on the political efficacy of the wider public by heightening perceived government responsiveness. The spillover project in Geneva [See section 8] underscores this by highlighting that the CIR in Sion had a ‘multiplier effect’[51], where the public’s confidence in its own capabilities could be boosted. This does, therefore, significantly heighten the cost-benefit ratio of the mini-public by indicating that the money and time required are not simply contributing to a singular event. They are contributing to future civic engagement and, in turn, also contributing to potentially higher levels of popular control in the future.

The fact that this CIR replicated the Oregon model in the United States evidences a relatively high level of transferability. Of course, whether or not a mini-public of this kind can be replicated does depend on funding capacities and political will. The demoscan team, for example, was able to manage the fiscal demands of random sampling processes due to support from the Swiss National Science Foundation, as well as the municipality of Sion. As local authorities had already been planning new channels for citizen participation, and had experience coordinating participatory democracy based on self-selection, they were much more likely to support the organizers of this CIR. This political context also meant that the probability of attracting the interest of citizens was high. Furthermore, costs depend on the level of institutionalization. To date, none of the locations which have adopted a CIR process have involved institutionalization by governments[52]. However, if they were to in the future, random sampling would be more feasible. Finally, the inclusiveness of this specific CIR does not necessarily mean that all CIRs can facilitate inclusion. Details relating to design would need to be modified or adapted depending on contextual factors. For example, the capacity of organizers to achieve gender equality through stratified sampling does depend on the cultural specificities of a given area. When involving a more diverse population, a CIR-like process could also be more contentious[53].

Despite the achievements of this democratic innovation, a few suggestions could be made regarding possibilities for improvement. Firstly, greater attention to the visuals of the summary statement could have enhanced its outreach. As underlined by Dzulkifli and Mustafar[54], colour functions as a ‘powerful information channel’ for the human cognitive system. Warm tones of yellow, red, and orange, for example, have been shown to attract higher levels of attention than cool tones such as brown and grey[55]. Considering this, it is possible that the CIR summary statement could have garnered even more interest if it had included a more engaging range of colours. Of course, such a claim is entirely theoretical; further experimentation would be required in order to understand the implications of a factor of this kind. Even so, it is certainly something to consider for the future development of CIRs. Furthermore, allowing the panelists to produce the summary statement without pre-prepared points would facilitate greater levels of popular control. However, it should be recognised that a modification of this kind could have negative implications for the efficiency of the mini-public as it would probably require more time for deliberation.

Overall, the outcomes of this mini-public are encouraging. They not only underscore the potential of the Oregon model to work within a European context, but also contribute to an enhanced understanding of how deliberative systems might work in the future[56].

See Also

Citizen Forum in Geneva

Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review

Healthy Democracy (organization)

Planning Cells

Citizens' Jury

References

[1] Gastil, J. and Richards, R. (2013) Making Direct Democracy Deliberative through Random Assemblies. Politics & Society. 41(2). pp. 253–281.

[2] Fenazzi, S. (2020) Do the Swiss need at least 10% social housing? [online] SWI swissinfo.ch. Available at: <https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/vote-february-9--2020_do-the-swiss-need-at-least-10--social-housing-/45438632> [Accessed 26 April 2021].

[3] Glaser, M. (2017) The Situation of Social Housing in Switzerland. Critical Housing Analysis. 4(1). pp. 72-80. Available at: <https://wohnforum.arch.ethz.ch/publikationen/fachartikeln/2017/situation-social-housing-switzerland.html> [Accessed 20 June 2021]

[4] Fenazzi, S. (2020) Do the Swiss need at least 10% social housing? [online] SWI swissinfo.ch. Available at: <https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/vote-february-9--2020_do-the-swiss-need-at-least-10--social-housing-/45438632> [Accessed 26 April 2021].

[5] Gastil (2017) Evidence from Oregon shows that Citizens’ Initiative Reviews can improve voters’ decision-making about ballot measures [online] London School of Economics. Available at: <https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/usappblog/2017/12/13/evidence-from-oregon-shows-that-citizens-initiative-reviews-can-improve-voters-decision-making-about-ballot-measures/> [Accessed 24th May 2021]

[6] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[7] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[8] Municipality of Sion (2019) Press Release. [online] Available at: <https://www.sion.ch/_docn/2023358/15502165228061.pdf> [Accessed 24^th May 2021]

[9]Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[10] Demoscan (2019) Executive summary. University of Geneva.

[11] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[12] Demoscan (2019) Executive summary. University of Geneva.

[13] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[14] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[15] Demoscan (2019) Executive summary. University of Geneva.

[16] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[17] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[18] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[19] Participedia (2019) Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. [online] Participedia. Available at: <https://participedia.net/method/592> [Accessed 24^th May 2021]

[20] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.94.

[21] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[22] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report. 

[23] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report. 

[24] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[25] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[26] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[27] Demoscan (2019) Executive summary. University of Geneva.

[28] Federal Chancellery BK (2021) Referendums. [online] The Federal Council. Available at: <https://www.bk.admin.ch/bk/de/home/politische-rechte/volksabstimmungen.html> [Accessed 24^th May 2021]

[29] Federal Chancellery BK (2021) Referendums. [online] The Federal Council. Available at: <https://www.bk.admin.ch/bk/de/home/politische-rechte/volksabstimmungen.html> [Accessed 24^th May 2021]

[30] Federal Chancellery BK (2021) Referendums. [online] The Federal Council. Available at: <https://www.bk.admin.ch/bk/de/home/politische-rechte/volksabstimmungen.html> [Accessed 24^th May 2021]

[31] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[32] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[33] Gastil, J., Richards, R. and Knobloch, K. R. (2014) Vicarious Deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review Influenced Deliberation in Mass elections, International Journal of Communication, 8: 62–89. Available at: <https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2235> [Accessed 20 June 2021]

[34] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.83.

[35] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.85.

[36] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[37] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[38] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[39] AdminStat (2018) Maps, analysis and statistics about the resident population. [online] AdminStat. Available via: < https://ugeo.urbistat.com/AdminStat/en/ch/demografia/dati-sintesi/sion/20146819/4> [Accessed 24^th May, 2021]

[40] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

[41] Spada. P, Allegretti. G, Secchi. M & Stortone. S (2016) Integrating Multiple Channels of Engagement: from Multichannel Marketing to Democratic Innovations. Unpublished report. Pp.4.

[42] Arendt, H. (1968) Between Past and Future. New York: Viking Press. 1982. Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy. University of Chicago Press. Pp.42.

[43] Smith, G. (2009). Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation (Theories of Institutional Design). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp.18

[44] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[45] Gastil, J., Rosenzweig, E., Knobloch, K. R., & Brinker, D. (2016). Does the public want mini-publics? Voter responses to the Citizens’ Initiative Review. Communication and the Public. 1(2). Pp. 174–192.

[46] Gastil, J. and Knobloch, K. R. (2010) Evaluation Report to the Oregon State Legislature on the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. University of Washington. 

[47] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[48] Geisler, A. and Stojanović, N. (n.d.) Project demoscan: Scientific Report. Department of Political Science and International Relations. University of Geneva. Unpublished preliminary report.

[49] Thompson, D. (2004) What Deliberative Democracy Means, in: Gutmann. A & Thompson. D (ed.) Why Deliberative Democracy? Princeton University Press. Pp. 52.

[50] Knobloch, K. R., Barthel, M. L. and Gastil, J. (2020) ‘Emanating Effects: The Impact of the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review on Voters’ Political Efficacy’, Political Studies, 68(2), pp. 426–445. Available at: <https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0032321719852254>

[51] Knobloch, K. R., Barthel, M. L. and Gastil, J. (2020) ‘Emanating Effects: The Impact of the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review on Voters’ Political Efficacy’, Political Studies, 68(2), pp. 426–445.

[52] Knobloch, K. R., Barthel, M. L. and Gastil, J. (2020) ‘Emanating Effects: The Impact of the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review on Voters’ Political Efficacy’, Political Studies, 68(2), pp. 426–445.

[53] Knobloch, K. R., Barthel, M. L. and Gastil, J. (2020) ‘Emanating Effects: The Impact of the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review on Voters’ Political Efficacy’, Political Studies, 68(2), pp. 426–445.

[54] Dzulkifli, M. A., & Mustafar, M. F. (2013). The Influence of Colour on Memory Performance: A Review. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences: MJMS, 20(2). Pp.3. Available at <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3743993/>

[55] Dzulkifli, M. A., & Mustafar, M. F. (2013). The Influence of Colour on Memory Performance: A Review. The Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences: MJMS, 20(2). Pp.3.

[56] Setälä, M., Grӧnlund, K., & Bӓchtiger, A. (2015) Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process. ECPR Press.

External Links

https://demoscan.ch/

https://healthydemocracy.org/cir/

https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/directdemocracy/participatory-democracy_swiss-town-entrusts-citizen-panel-to-help-voters-analyse-information/45161616 

https://www.sion.ch/rencontrescitoyennes

https://www.ge.ch/document/geneve-teste-projet-novateur-participation-citoyenne-democratie-directe

Notes