Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
Thehttps:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

NIH NLM Logo
Log inShow account info
Access keysNCBI HomepageMyNCBI HomepageMain ContentMain Navigation
pubmed logo
Advanced Clipboard
User Guide

Full text links

Nature Publishing Group full text link Nature Publishing Group Free PMC article
Full text links

Actions

Comparative Study
.2021 Aug;596(7873):548-552.
doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03788-6. Epub 2021 Aug 4.

Fair algorithms for selecting citizens' assemblies

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Fair algorithms for selecting citizens' assemblies

Bailey Flanigan et al. Nature.2021 Aug.

Abstract

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 probability2,3. However, in practice these desiderata are in tension owing to differential participation rates across subpopulations4,5. 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.

© 2021. The Author(s).

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

B.H. is the founder and co-director of the Sortition Foundation.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1. Algorithm optimizing a fairness measureF.
Step (1): construct a maximally fair output distribution 𝒟 over an optimal portfolio 𝒫 of quota-compliant panels (denoted by coloured boxes), which is done by iteratively building an optimal portfolio of panels and computing the fairest distribution over that portfolio. Step (2): sample the distribution to select a final panel.
Fig. 2
Fig. 2. Selection probabilities.
Selection probabilities given by LEGACY and LEXIMIN to the bottom 60% of pool members on six representative instances, in which pool members are ordered in order of increasing selection probability given by the respective algorithms. Shaded boxes denote the range of pool members with a selection probability given by LEGACY that is lower than the minimum probability given by LEXIMIN. LEGACY probabilities are estimated over 10,000 randomly sampled panels and are indicated with 99% confidence intervals (as described in ‘Statistics’ in the Methods). Green dotted lines show the equalized probability (k/n). Extended Data Figs. 1, 2 show corresponding graphs for the remaining instances and up to the 100th percentile.
Fig. 3
Fig. 3. Using LEXIMIN output to select a panel via a live uniform lottery.
a, To construct the lottery, the output distribution was transformed into a uniform distribution over 1,000 panels (numbered 000–999).b, During the lottery, the three digits that determined the final panel were drawn from lottery machines, making each panel observably selected with equal probability.c, The personalized interface (screenshot taken simultaneously withb) showed each pool member the number of panels out of 1,000 that they were on, allowing them to verify their own selection probabilities and those of others. Screen capture credit, of by for*.
Extended Data Fig. 1
Extended Data Fig. 1. Selection probabilities for remaining instances.
Selection probabilities given by LEGACY and LEXIMIN to the bottom 60% of pool members on the 4 instances that are not shown in Fig. 2. Pool members are ordered across thex axis in order of increasing probability given by the respective algorithms. Shaded boxes denote the range of pool members with a selection probability given by LEGACY that is lower than the minimum probability given by LEXIMIN. LEGACY probabilities are estimated over 10,000 random panels and are indicated with 99% confidence intervals (as described in ‘Statistics’ in the Methods). Green dotted lines show the equalized probability (k/n).
Extended Data Fig. 2
Extended Data Fig. 2. Selection probabilities up to the 100th percentile.
Selection probabilities given by LEGACY and LEXIMIN on all ten instances. Pool members are ordered across thex axis in order of increasing probability given by the respective algorithms. In contrast to Fig. 2 and Extended Data Fig. 1, this graph shows the full range of selection probabilities (up to the 100th percentile). Shaded boxes denote the range of pool members with a selection probability given by LEGACY that is lower than the minimum probability given by LEXIMIN. LEGACY probabilities are estimated over 10,000 random panels and are indicated with 99% confidence intervals (as described in ‘Statistics’ in the Methods). Green dotted lines show the equalized probability (k/n).
Extended Data Fig. 3
Extended Data Fig. 3. Overrepresentation and LEGACY selection probabilities.
Relationship between how overrepresented the features of an agent are and how likely they are to be chosen by the LEGACY algorithm. The level of overrepresentation is quantified as the ratio product (as described in ‘Individuals rarely selected by LEGACY’ in the Methods); agents further to the right are more overrepresented. Across instances, pool members with high ratio product are consistently selected with very low probabilities.
Extended Data Fig. 4
Extended Data Fig. 4. Representation of feature intersections.
For all intersections of two features on the instance sf(e), how far the expected number of group members selected by LEGACY or LEXIMIN differs from the proportional share in the population is shown. Although many intersectional groups are represented close to accurately, some groups are over- and underrepresented by more than 15 percentage points by either algorithm. Which groups get over- and underrepresented is highly correlated between both algorithms. Panel shares are computed for a pool of size 1,727, and population shares are based on a survey with 1,915 respondents after cleaning.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. OECD.Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave (OECD Publishing, 2020).
    1. Carson, L. & Martin, B.Random Selection in Politics (Praeger, 1999).
    1. Leydet D. Which conception of political equality do deliberative mini-publics promote? Eur. J. Polit. Theory. 2019;18:349–370. doi: 10.1177/1474885116665600. - DOI
    1. MASS LBP. How to run a civic lottery: designing fair selection mechanisms for deliberative public processes.https://www.masslbp.com/s/civiclotteryguide.pdf (2017).
    1. newDemocracy Foundation and United Nations Democracy Fund.Enabling National Initiatives to Take Democracy Beyond Elections (newDemocracy Foundation, 2018).

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Full text links
Nature Publishing Group full text link Nature Publishing Group Free PMC article
Cite
Send To

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSHPMCBookshelfDisclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.


[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2026 Movatter.jp