This.
Random sampling seems to presuppose that citizens are interchangable - that one is not much different from another.
That is simply not the case. Not only do we all have different backgrounds and skills (that’s a good thing) - some citizens put in a lot of time and effort, while others don’t even show up (this is less ideal).
50 citizens were invited to the recent deliberation, as I understand it. Why did only 25 participate / vote?
Up to 40 citizens regularly participate in the ratification of token house votes. A record 54 showed up for the ratification of the profit definition.
Where are the remaining ~80 citizens?
There seems to be an assumption that if citizens don’t vote, they are lacking confidence, as seen in intent 1 here: “Increase in the percentage of Citizens that feel confident voting on upgrade vetos (to be measured via the voting UI in each veto proposal)”.
But where does that assumption come from? Not one citizen expressed lack of confidence in the most recent veto vote. How do you increase a percentage that is already 100?
If the goal was rather to increase the percentage of citizens who vote, excluding those that don’t would do the trick.
I think it would be better to work at increasing both the raw number and the percentage of active citizens. However, to do so, it would make sense to actively support those who are already active and offer them a sense of community and purpose.
To my mind, treating people as radically interchangable, even with no-shows, does the exact opposite.
Optimism needs active citizens with shared context and diverse views and skills. We should be building on what is already there. Not pretending that a random sample of 50 that turns into 25 (likely less random) is representative.