The limits of representativeness in citizens' assemblies: A critical analysis of democratic minipublics

This article critically examines the widespread claim that minipublics, such as citizens assemblies, typically represent the broader population in democratic decision-making. Through systematic analysis, we identify four fundamental challenges to representativeness: small sample sizes, group effects that complicate output legitimacy, sampling biases from population lists, and low acceptance rates. We evaluate three common strategies used to justify small sample minipublics — stratification, supermajority voting, and second-best arguments — and demonstrate why these approaches fail to resolve the underlying representativeness problems. Rather than abandoning minipublics entirely, we propose three alternative ways forward: (1) scaling up and integrating multiple independent minipublics, (2) targeting specific inclusion failures rather than pursuing broad representation, and (3) leveraging nondomination claims instead of representativeness. While the first approach faces significant technical and cost challenges, the latter two offer more practical paths forward, particularly in addressing concrete democratic deficits in existing institutions. We conclude that minipublics remain valuable democratic innovations, but their legitimacy should be grounded in their ability to address specific inclusion failures and prevent domination by organized minorities rather than claims of broad population representation.