Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
The paper investigates algorithmic opinion selection methods for online deliberation platforms, highlighting the potential for bias and the need to balance consensus with representation. They benchmark existing algorithms and introduce a novel social-choice-inspired algorithm designed to improve both diversity and proportional representation. Empirical results demonstrate that their proposed algorithm achieves a superior trade-off between these two democratic criteria compared to existing methods.
A social-choice-inspired algorithm offers a better balance between proportional representation and diversity when selecting opinions in online deliberation, outperforming existing methods.
During deliberation processes, mediators and facilitators typically need to select a small and representative set of opinions later used to produce digestible reports for stakeholders. In online deliberation platforms, algorithmic selection is increasingly used to automate this process. However, such automation is not without consequences. For instance, enforcing consensus-seeking algorithmic strategies can imply ignoring or flattening conflicting preferences, which may lead to erasing minority voices and reducing content diversity. More generally, across the variety of existing selection strategies (e.g., consensus, diversity), it remains unclear how each approach influences desired democratic criteria such as proportional representation. To address this gap, we benchmark several algorithmic approaches in this context. We also build on social choice theory to propose a novel algorithm that incorporates both diversity and a balanced notion of representation in the selection strategy. We find empirically that while no single strategy dominates across all democratic desiderata, our social-choice-inspired selection rule achieves the strongest trade-off between proportional representation and diversity.
