In a deliberation we select diverse members of the public to make a judgment on behalf of everyone else.
But let’s face it: a random member of the public is unlikely to know anywhere near enough about a given topic to make an informed policy choice—even though they themselves may think otherwise—and, by extension, we may ask why would an assembly of the public fare any better?
Similarly, we expect elected officials to know better than a random member of the public but why should that be the case? It’s clear that every public deliberation, whether comprised of elected or randomly picked members, needs experts to provide detailed and up to date information.
Who chooses which experts to invite?
How do we ensure a deliberation is not unduly biased?
How do we avoid the experts taking over and using the CA to openwash their own technocratic agenda?
Why would an expert bother to get out of bed? Are they being paid?