Deliberative Democracy Example: One Issue, Step by Step

Most explanations of deliberative democracy stay at the level of principles. Useful, but not enough. What people usually need is a concrete, end-to-end picture of what “deliberation” looks like when a real institution has to make a real decision, on a deadline, with a budget, with legal constraints, and with public trust on the line.

Below is a deliberative democracy example for a single issue, written as a repeatable playbook. It is designed to match the spirit of JustSocial’s manifesto, “The Face of Democracy”: democracy as an always-on civic operating system, supported by transparent infrastructure (not one-off engagement events).

The one issue in this example

Issue: Should a city introduce a Vacant Homes Fee (a yearly fee on long-term vacant residential units) to increase housing supply and fund affordable housing programs?

Why this is a good deliberation candidate:

• It has real tradeoffs (fairness, enforcement, unintended consequences).

• It needs evidence (vacancy rates, market impacts, legal constraints).

• It affects different groups differently (renters, owners, small landlords, developers).

• It is easy to politicize, so process legitimacy matters.

This is not about replacing elected officials. It is about creating a consequential, auditable pathway for public reasoning to shape a decision, which is a core theme in the manifesto’s push for continuous, transparent democratic infrastructure.

Step 0: Publish the “participation promise” (what power the process really has)

Before anyone contributes, the city publishes a short, plain-language commitment that answers one question: What will you do with the outcome?

Example participation promise:

• Decision owner: City Council Finance Committee.

• Decision type: Ordinance + budget allocation recommendation.

• Authority: Committee commits to a public vote, plus a written response to each shortlisted option.

• Timeline: 10 weeks from launch to vote.

• What is binding: The committee vote is binding. The deliberation output is advisory but must receive a formal “duty-to-respond with receipts.”

This is a practical version of the manifesto’s argument that legitimacy requires more than voice, it requires visible linkage between participation and state action.

Step 1: Create an Issue Pack (so the public is not guessing)

A deliberative process starts with a shared reference point. The city publishes an Issue Pack (also called a Decision Pack in some systems) with the minimum information needed to deliberate responsibly.

Include:

• Problem statement: Housing costs rising faster than incomes.

• Proposed mechanism: Annual fee on homes vacant for more than X months.

• Constraints: State law limits on taxation, privacy limits on data collection.

• Non-goals: Not a general “anti-landlord” policy, not a construction permit reform.

• Decision criteria: Impact on housing availability, fairness, enforceability, administrative cost.

• Known uncertainties: True vacancy rate, risk of loopholes.

A key manifesto-aligned principle here is that democracy needs an inspectable interface. If the Issue Pack is vague, the process becomes vibes and slogans. If it is specific, people can reason.

If you want a deeper template for turning civic input into decision-ready artifacts, see JustSocial’s model in From Petition to Policy: Building a Civic Action Pipeline.

Step 2: Define eligibility and inclusion (who gets to participate, and how)

For this example, the city allows broad participation, but distinguishes between “anyone can comment” and “who can influence the formal recommendation.”

A clean pattern:

• Open channel (low friction): Anyone can submit arguments, evidence, and stories.

• Deliberation panel (high integrity): A demographically representative mini-public of residents (randomly selected, with stratification), plus a small number of affected stakeholders as witnesses.

This aligns with what the OECD describes as the rise of deliberative “mini-publics” used to complement representative institutions (see OECD, Catch the Deliberative Wave (2020)).

In manifesto terms, this is part of building a People’s Branch style capacity: a standing civic function that can run legitimate processes repeatedly, with inclusion built in.

Step 3: Build an Evidence Commons (so deliberation is not just opinion)

The city creates a public “Evidence Commons” page that anyone can inspect. This is where the manifesto’s emphasis on knowledge and institutional learning becomes practical (the manifesto argues for stronger civic education and an “academic” function that serves democracy).

The Evidence Commons includes:

• Data: Current vacancy estimates, housing production, rent trends.

• Case studies: What other cities tried, what happened.

• Legal memo: What is permitted under state law.

• Operations memo: Enforcement options and costs.

• Equity analysis: Who pays, who benefits.

• Public submissions: Structured claims with citations.

Two design rules matter:

• Every claim should be traceable. If someone asserts “this will raise rents,” the process asks, “Based on what evidence, in what context?”

• Summaries must be citizen-readable, with links to full sources. Otherwise only professionals can participate.

If you are building this online, it is also where misinformation defenses start, not at the end. JustSocial’s guide Misinformation in Online Democracy: What Works covers the “layered” approach that works best in practice.

Step 4: Intake and clustering (turn hundreds of inputs into a map, not a mess)

Now the city opens intake for 2 weeks.

Instead of free-text chaos, every submission uses a simple structure:

• Position: Support, oppose, or conditional.

• Claim: One sentence.

• Evidence link: Optional but encouraged.

• Value: Fairness, freedom, affordability, neighborhood stability, etc.

• Policy lever: Exemptions, enforcement, fee level, use of revenue.

A small civic team then publishes a public clustering report, for example:

• Cluster A: “Fee should fund affordable housing.”

• Cluster B: “Enforcement will be invasive.”

• Cluster C: “Exemptions needed for inherited property, renovations, medical absence.”

• Cluster D: “Primary driver is new supply, not vacancy.”

This is where “continuous democracy” becomes more than a slogan. The key is to publish intermediate outputs that let people see the system thinking, not only the final vote.

Step 5: Deliberation sessions (structured, facilitated, and on the record)

The mini-public meets across 4 sessions (hybrid is fine). Each session has facilitation and a published agenda.

Core process rules:

• Equal speaking opportunity.

• Steelmanning encouraged (summarize the opposing view before rebutting).

• Claims are separated from values (you can disagree on facts or on priorities).

• The group must produce a written rationale, not just a tally.

The city publishes a Deliberation Record:

• Attendance and demographic targets (privacy-protected).

• The agenda and materials used.

• A synthesis of arguments.

• Minority opinions (if any).

• Conflicts of interest disclosures for experts.

If you are worried about moderation and censorship claims, the safest approach is to moderate the process, not the viewpoint. See How to Moderate Political Deliberation Without Censorship.

Step 6: Co-design 3 decision-grade options (not 20 half-baked ideas)

This is the moment many “engagement” programs fail. They collect opinions, then the institution quietly does something else.

In this example, the panel must produce three decision-grade options that the committee can actually vote on.

Example options:

• Option 1 (Targeted): Fee applies to properties vacant 9+ months, with strong exemptions (renovation permits, medical absence), and revenue dedicated to housing assistance.

• Option 2 (Strict): Fee applies after 6 months, fewer exemptions, higher enforcement budget.

• Option 3 (Pilot): Two-year pilot in high-vacancy districts, with a sunset clause and evaluation metrics.

Each option gets an Option Brief:

• Expected impact (with uncertainty ranges if needed).

• Administrative requirements.

• Legal risk.

• Equity impact.

• What evidence would change the recommendation.

Step 7: Decision linkage (the “receipt” that proves participation mattered)

Now the elected body acts.

The committee holds a public meeting and must publish a Decision Receipt that maps public deliberation to the outcome:

• What option was chosen (or how options were modified).

• The reasons, tied to the decision criteria from Step 1.

• Which arguments were accepted or rejected, and why.

• What will be revisited after implementation.

This is a direct expression of the manifesto’s insistence on transparency and accountability as living practices, not PR.

For a broader institutional framing of this idea, see People’s Branch of Government: What It Means in Practice.

Step 8: Implementation tracking (democracy continues after the vote)

If deliberative democracy stops at the vote, it teaches the public the wrong lesson: “Talk is cheap.”

So the city launches a public Implementation Tracker for 12 months:

• Ordinance status and any amendments.

• Enforcement start date.

• Budget spent vs budget planned.

• Outcomes: declared vacancies, compliance rate, revenue, housing units funded.

• Complaints and appeals statistics.

This “close the loop” stage is central to JustSocial’s continuous direct democracy approach. It is also where trust is rebuilt, because people can verify outcomes, not just promises.

If you want a dedicated model for this, see Policy Feedback Loops: Turn Public Input Into Action.

What gets published, and when (the audit trail)

Here is the same deliberative democracy example summarized as a publication checklist.

Step	Public artifact	Why it matters for legitimacy	Minimum standard
0	Participation Promise	Prevents engagement theater	Names decision owner, authority, timeline
1	Issue Pack	Prevents vague debates	Scope, constraints, criteria
2	Eligibility and Inclusion Plan	Prevents capture and exclusion	Who can do what, and access paths
3	Evidence Commons	Makes reasoning possible	Sources, summaries, traceability
4	Clustering Report	Turns noise into a map	Transparent method, themes, volumes
5	Deliberation Record	Makes process inspectable	Agenda, synthesis, minority views
6	Option Briefs	Makes input decision-grade	Impacts, costs, risks, tradeoffs
7	Decision Receipt	Proves linkage to power	Rationale tied to criteria
8	Implementation Tracker	Prevents “announce and forget”	Milestones, metrics, updates

Where technology helps (and where it should not)

JustSocial’s manifesto emphasizes technology as an enabler of continuous participation, but not a substitute for governance.

In this example, technology is best used for:

• Intake forms that force clarity (claim, evidence, value).

• Versioned public artifacts (Issue Packs, Option Briefs, decision receipts).

• Audit logs for process integrity.

• Accessibility features (plain language layers, multilingual support, mobile-first).

Technology should not:

• Secretly rank or personalize political content in ways citizens cannot inspect.

• Replace accountable human decision-makers.

(If you are designing civic AI, JustSocial’s AI in Democracy: Safe Uses and Red Lines is a strong guardrail.)

Common failure modes (and how this example avoids them)

Deliberation fails in predictable ways. The fix is usually not “more engagement,” it is better rules and artifacts.

• Failure mode: The issue is too vague. Fix: a tight Issue Pack with clear criteria.

• Failure mode: The loudest group dominates. Fix: a mini-public plus equal-time facilitation.

• Failure mode: Disinformation floods the process. Fix: evidence commons, provenance, and friction.

• Failure mode: Officials ignore outcomes. Fix: published participation promise and decision receipts.

• Failure mode: Nothing happens after the vote. Fix: an implementation tracker with metrics.

(For manipulation threats specifically, see How to Prevent Astroturfing in Digital Participation.)

Frequently Asked Questions

Is this still democracy if the mini-public is small? Yes, if it is designed as a legitimate deliberative body that is inclusive, evidence-informed, transparent, and linked to a real decision. It complements elections rather than replacing them.

Do we always need random selection? Not always. For high-stakes, polarized issues, random selection helps legitimacy. For lower-stakes topics, open deliberation with strong safeguards can be enough.

Can a deliberative process be online only? Sometimes, but hybrid is often better for inclusion and trust. If it is online, accessibility, identity/eligibility, and transparent moderation become even more important.

How do you prove the process was not manipulated? By publishing auditable artifacts: eligibility rules, moderation and enforcement transparency, evidence provenance, version history, and decision receipts that show how inputs were handled.

How long does this take in real life? A focused issue can run in 8 to 12 weeks if the scope is tight and the artifacts are standardized. The point is repeatability, not perfection.

---

Build deliberation that actually links to power

If you want deliberative democracy to be more than a one-time experiment, you need institutions and infrastructure that make participation continuous, transparent, and consequential.

Read JustSocial’s manifesto, “The Face of Democracy” to understand the broader vision (including the People’s Branch concept), then explore JustSocial’s work on practical civic pipelines and decision-linked participation across the site at JustSocial.io.