Get polarized over time, and then one politician sees this advantage to play this out.

To me, it sounds like a particularly beautiful example, because this is exactly the sort of headline-grabbing topic that in traditional politics gets misused.

Can share more about that?

That’s a very charged topic, very divisive, right?

Billy mentioned that survey to me.

I’m curious. Do we have examples here of processes where there was really a very strong polarization? We mentioned breakthrough. Uber in some ways was polarized.

What you see is that when you have deep deliberative spaces, these things tend to break down, because then suddenly I see...

Of course, but the way the media frames it... Also, in a very real sense, a growing number of people really wrapped in their identity around I am Republican. I am liberal.

Perceived, exactly.

I’m curious. We live in this age of hyperpolarization. I live in the US.

Of course, there’s ways that we can try to involve people who are offline, but it’s so much more costly.

I’m curious how you see that evolving. Is it just a matter of time that we have to wait until everybody is a digital native, and at that point...?

You obviously want people about whom the process is going to be making to be able to access it, and people who aren’t easily online.

Emergent and broadly linked to netizens, right?

Yeah. I’m curious about this constraint that you currently have and vTaiwan, that the topics have to be...

Deeply listening, deeply understanding your perspective. No two-minute increments allow me to have that bond of seeing you, trusting you, starting to see you in a new light, hearing what is the story behind the story that makes you view that world, that starts to make me question my certainties.

Maybe it’s because this is too early and we are not there technologically or even in our mindsets. I haven’t come across anything that makes me believe that, at some point, it is actual people being together through virtual reality and actually spending their time of getting to know one ...

The way they do in pol.is?

What I mean is deliberation takes time. The reason you have jury duty is that...

But there’s only so many people who are interested or willing or capable of showing up.

Then, you stumble upon another issue, which is self-selection versus random sortation, right?

Yeah. At the larger scale we need to.

All of these different forms that exist. The standard reaction to almost everybody is, "Are you kidding me? What’s the legitimacy? I didn’t vote for them. Two, I don’t trust them."

A question for me here is how will the population at large become comfortable with sortation and the legitimacy of it, even though now we have decades of experience that show that ordinary citizens with the right facilitation can deliberate in a way that’s often way better than parliaments.

Get rid of all of the negative externalities of vote and politics and polarization.

Makes sense. I think that’s the part where we could de-bottleneck our current parliamentarian system.

I’m curious, if as part of your stakeholders, you have citizen, let’s think in the Uber case, you have just a general population that was present.

How did you map sortation or stakeholder on diamond...?

Can you expend on first and second diamond? I’m just curious.

...system.

You mean in the penal...

In your case, I think because you come from ministries or the relation, you come at it from a stakeholder perspective.

A lot of these people are in love with the sortation model.

Another question I have is that a lot of the people who come and participate in democracy are from the facilitation angle. All the people who come from the tech angle, there’s the more traditional facilitation and university professors.

...the old power model needs to handle it, right?

I’m trying to think ahead. The old power model, used the setting up as a dichotomy where we can play nice and if it’s not working, then...

I remember that story.

Has it happen, like people just said...

I’m just curious if you’ve had cases...I could imagine that some stakeholders in the Uber case, Airbnb case, and whatever, could want to use their power to block that thing because they feel that the status quo is better for them than any new thing. They feel that if this ...

What?

I’m curious about that because traditionally people view consensus as potentially problematic in the sense that it gives you veto power. If one of the stakeholders...

Another topic I was curious about is, if I understood you well in some of the interviews that I watched, at the end, you’re aiming for a rough consensus that goes to some specifications that then get translated into legalese.

It’s a combination of openness, that transparency about what’s happening.

I’m curious about that. Can you say more about it?

There’s lots of these small decisions that, in the end, become important. There seems to be a level of trust that you’ve been able to achieve. It could be very easy for people who dislike the process to start to doubt the neutrality.

The agenda-setting, the stakeholder identification.

Another question that I had pop up for me is that there is real power in the role of the facilitators, people who shepherd cases through the processes.

Interesting.

Specifically, here in Taiwan?

Is one of them. How do you think about that question of scalability? For instance, my understanding is in vTaiwan, a lot depends on the capacity of people from g0v to show up, from the ministries to show up, from leaders to show up. How do you think about scaling ...