1. About
1.1. Phd in deliberative democracy
1.2. Lecturer in Netanya College
2. derived from the perception of the public space
3. main claim
3.1. deliberative public discussion yields better/optimal decisions
4. definition
4.1. discussion in which participants carefully examine ... while giving respect & הכללה
4.2. Gastil, 2008
4.2.1. Must contain 2 components
4.2.1.1. Analytical process
4.2.1.1.1. base of knowledge
4.2.1.1.2. values system
4.2.1.1.3. identify & evaluate solutions
4.2.1.1.4. decision making
4.2.1.2. Social process
4.2.1.2.1. Equality
4.2.1.2.2. הכללה
4.2.1.2.3. Mutual listening
4.2.1.2.4. Mutual respect
4.2.2. This definition is a normative ideal
4.2.2.1. can be used to evaluate communication processe
5. goal of deliberative discussion:
5.1. solve problems
6. note
6.1. context (israel) is very important
6.1.1. solution for the states may not be compatible with Israeli culture
7. History
7.1. Applications, in the 80's-90's
7.1.1. F2F meetings in US & Europe
7.1.1.1. bottom-up/grass-roots
7.1.1.2. community scale
7.1.2. In nation-sclae, mainly using polls
7.1.2.1. Fishkin
7.1.2.2. National Issues Forum
7.1.2.3. Choose national issue & conduct public forums & discussions to extract public opinion
7.1.3. Mixed effects
7.1.3.1. Empower political orientation
7.1.3.2. Improve decision making processes
7.1.4. Criticism
7.1.4.1. Eliticist
7.1.4.1.1. Lay men can't be involved in decision making
7.1.4.2. Difficult in implementation
7.1.4.2.1. pre-internet-age
7.2. Deliberative democracy in the digital age
7.2.1. Technology today can overcome logistic problems
7.2.2. Hybrid technologies, involving also F2F meetings
7.2.3. Creative diverse technologies
7.2.4. Practical pragmatic approach
7.2.5. Examples
7.2.5.1. America Speaks
7.2.5.1.1. Organized 5K ppl F2F meeting discussing post-9/11 planning
7.2.5.1.2. 800 online ppl
7.2.5.2. Viewpoint learning
7.2.5.3. 1000 tables
7.2.5.3.1. in Israeli
7.2.5.4. Augmented deliberation
7.2.5.4.1. Mixed F2F & digital discussions
7.2.5.4.2. E.g., using Second Life
8. Promoting online deliberative democracy
8.1. Difficulties
8.2. factors affectibg the quality
8.2.1. Real-time or async
8.2.2. Anonymity
8.2.3. Moderation
8.2.4. Threading
8.2.5. Perception of public space
8.2.5.1. Freiser
8.3. Challenges
8.3.1. Leveraging deliberative discussion
8.3.2. Creativity
8.3.3. Efficiency
9. Notes
9.1. Mushon Zer-Aviv
9.1.1. Is the underlying assumption that crowds deliberation yields better decisions?
9.1.1.1. Idit:
9.1.1.1.1. Yes, at least in the aspect that the solutions fits more members of the crowd
9.2. Doron Tzur
9.2.1. An important aspect not mentioned:
9.2.1.1. by involving many people in the deliberative process, a major effect is the consciousness change of the participants, that better understand the problem, better influence the solution to fit them, & yield increased chances to realize the decisions