There&#x27;s two assumptions many in the civic tech space seem to share that I don&#x27;t think are so obvious (not that I think they are wrong, just that I think they&#x27;re not obvious):<p>A1: The world would be better if politicians paid more attention to public opinion or knew more about it. I don&#x27;t think this is so clear. Citizens support many policies not in their interest, don&#x27;t know everything that experts do, etc. Most democracies reflect a tradeoff between popular control on the one hand and expert judgment &#x2F; elite control on the other. I don&#x27;t think either extreme is the best, and don&#x27;t know where we are on that continuum relative to the ideal. But for what it&#x27;s worth, my sense is that citizens actually understand this to some extent and ofter defer to legislators&#x27; judgments: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;stanford.edu&#x2F;~dbroock&#x2F;papers&#x2F;broockman_butler_legislator_experiments_2014.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;stanford.edu&#x2F;~dbroock&#x2F;papers&#x2F;broockman_butler_legisla...</a><p>A2: In order to increase citizen engagement, we should focus on lowering the cost of acquiring information about politics, the cost of participation, or the cost of providing information to representatives. I think this misses the real challenge: increasing people&#x27;s motivation to participate and the benefits to participation. It&#x27;s never been easier to participate in myriad ways -- the cost is epsilon. But if people see the benefits as zero, which many seem to, they still won&#x27;t engage. I don&#x27;t think the cost side of the equation is where the action is.