as as you said very well, my name is Antoine Veania Wieden. Yes, I'm originally from from France, living in Germany since over twenty years. And I'm working at Mission Public. I'm one of the co directors of Mission Public and we are a team of 15 around 15 and we are based in Paris, Brussels and Bonn in Germany so the three countries But we we focus our work, at all levels of governance. And what we do is, as you said at the beginning, is understanding how to innovate in the way we take collective decisions, in the way we do governance for the twenty first century. And it's really about that question of how do you reinvent processes and ways to take collective decisions that are fit for, the challenges we have and the opportunities we have. Because many of the ways we take decisions nowadays are inherited from the nineteenth century or the twentieth century. If you take, the elections that are a tomb from the nineteenth century or opinion polls, which are, based in science from the twentieth century, still working, but they are, you can question, their fitness for the twenty first century and the way society has evolved. So what we do at Maison Publique is trying to design and implement those kind of new ways of taking creative decisions.

Yeah. So on my personal background, I studied political sciences. So, yes, I was interested in politics since a long time. But there was so as I started my my study, there was one question that kind of bothered me it was the the question of how liberal democracies work and the question which was already back then nineteen ninety eight nineteen ninety nine about the question of the crisis of liberal democracies and the crisis of trust, between citizens and elites, between representatives and represented. And I was really wondering how to solve that crisis or to improve the situation. And I discovered, so one day I was working from one lecture to another. And in the in the floor, I saw an announcement for a conference, which was about stococracy so a stococratic system and it was it was a there was a picture saying why shouldn't we elect our representative through random selections so the members of the parliament and I was wow okay that's that's crazy but that's interesting. Then I went to the the conference and I was completely convinced or at least very interested in understanding what that could mean to go for random selection in politics and then I kind of entered the rabbit hole of random selection in politics. I wrote my thesis of the end of the study about random selection politics And then I studied a master, on the topic. And then I started a PhD on the topic. And in 2011, I had, I so I finished my PhD on the topic of random selection and politics. And the question around the expectation because at that time, it was the moment where it really grew, that idea. And many authors rediscovered the ancient Athenian idea or Italian Florence and and Venice idea of having random selection as part of the box, the tooling box of, selection and and procedures and how you take productive decisions. And it was forgotten for a long time but in the 70s and 80s and the 90s, again people started to to think about it, to research it, and to propose random selection as one way to take decisions not only to select people in as citizens assemblies but also to take decisions or to rank decisions. There was a for example a full discussion at the end of the 70s about difficult choices so if you were for example to to pick someone for dialysis so it was the moment where also those medical, treatments were becoming possible but very expensive. So it was the question of how to distribute that in a fair way. So there was a full discussion in in philosophy about that and it grew it grew it grew and at the same time the practice of having randomly selected citizens grew in places like Germany or The US where the mini publics were invented but there was kind of a disconnect between the the food theory and the practice because practitioners were doing it and theoreticians were thinking about it but there was a few connections. So my my PHD was about the the question of the expectation of the theory versus the realization of the practice so is are the expectations of the theory realized in the practice of many publics and that was kind of the the big question I had with a yes as an answer with conditions and conditions about scaling. So we are going to to go back to that. At the same time, one of the field of research of my PhD was the citizen's theory implemented by Nissan Publique. So that's when I encountered the team from Nissan Publique and I started to work with the team. And since 2011, I'm there, and I worked, at Nissan Publique.

so for me random selection is one of the the tools we can use but we need to to put a bit aside I don't know if it's normativity but the question of perception also it's so we we are used to forcible elections let's let's say or rather even more basic when we take collective decisions we can do it in a variety of ways and you can for example indeed have a vote but you can also very often for example collective decision is made through market processes. So when when you have a price which is the the way to put an equilibrium between offer and demand and that's a way to aggregate preferences and have a collective decision through the price. And in a vote it's the way you do it in the sense that you aggregate surferes or votes and then you have a collective decision. And another way, we are used to do it is through criteria. So you take a list of criteria, and you say, for example, for example, yeah, someone needs something. So because you you have a low income, for example, you could you could put a system of criteria on on need or you could say the system of criterion merit and because someone has been good in school good grades so this person has the right to go to university which is numerous closest like it was for a long time Germany. And but there is another way also and that's the the fourth big mechanism to take collective decision is random selection. And in this case the the aggregation the fact that you you you have a set of options and you go to less options is made through an adiatorian moment so random. And that's interesting because it has a couple of of use cases where it's very useful. For example, if you want to prevent corruption. Corruption is a big use case of random selection because when you randomly select you lower the incentives for every actor to be successful with corruption. Let's imagine for example you you have a public tender for building a big highway and you have different companies that put a tender. But at the end, the three best companies are in a lot and you can pick one of the three to be the one winning the contract. So what you do with that is you lower by two thirds the probability of being successful when you want to corrupt. And that's very interesting because with that you the strategies of the actors are very different imagine for example that in the fifa world cup system it it wouldn't be a vote but it would be a random selection and that would be very interesting because all the corruption incentives would be much different and that's the same when you select judges when you select jury members for example that's why also many places in the world select their jury members through random selection. Random selection has a lot of very interesting use cases in decision making. And,

yeah. So, scaling is is something like the focus of our work at Nissan Public and personally because when we when we started in two thousand and eight, nine, ten to think about the next step for deliberative democracy, particularly for many public citizens assemblies. We had that big question to understand, okay, it seems to be working at local level. It seems to be working at regional level. How do we scale that to the national, transnational, or global level? Because the questions we are addressing, for example, we were working on citizen's theory on climate change in one city or one region. And that makes sense, of course, because, you can have competencies and the people are living there. But it's also limited because those are, global challenges and questions of global governance that should be, also handled at the global level, which they are. Because if you take climate, it's the UNFCCC and the COP, process. So, around two thousand ten, eleven, we started at mise en public to to think about how to scale those processes for those kind of questions or those kind of governance. And we had a first step which was national level in twenty eleven twelve thirteen where we were we managed to to scale a deliberative process to the national level in France about energy transition that managed to be that was the just the starting point of a new law on energy transition and the energy mix in France. And that was a very good experience and And after that we we wondered what to scale from there to international level and to the global level and that's when we started a cooperation with the Danish Board of Technologies and we started and deployed worldwide views which was the the largest ever citizens deliberation. We managed to have around 10,000 citizens in 76 countries as a preparation to COP twenty one in Paris. And we had an official agreement with the UN, UNFCCC and the French government to bring the results of those deliberations into the Paris negotiation on the Paris agreement. And that was a pure vertical scaling. So scaling in the sense of going from local to global. But it was then when we had a very important lesson that you can't only scale out in terms of going further but you also need to understand how to scale high and I will come back to those concepts a bit later. Scaling high meaning having a very very strong connection to decision making. So you can do a very nice process at global level but if you have no impact you scale something but you you miss some scale dimension of scaling. And indeed for the the world values on climate we had a very good dissemination and communication which was very hard to understand the impact on policy. And that changed a bit later. We we managed in 2020 to work with the French government on the climate citizens climate assembly and that one was very interesting because we managed to both have a national process which was kind of scaling out at national level and something that never happened before because over 70% of the French population knew about the process. So that was really also a scaling, in the sense of knowledge and awareness of the population of the process. At the same time it was scaling in the sense of a very strong embeddedness with the governmental work because now five years five and a half years later around 7075% of the measures that were recommended by the citizens of the convention were implemented in the French system So that's another dimension of scaling because you you have that impact between democratic innovation and decision making. And that was also for us a learning and then we we had still one question which is okay now you you have done a one off but who do you do you understand how this embedness in the in the system goes over time. So that's not just a one off, but, over time, a repetition. And it's kind of, your question we we we we like to call it scaling deep, in the sense that how does, scaling works not only as a institutional one off but also over time and penetrates a system and institution. And for that we have the chance to have a good example which is the European commission because the we we've been working with the European commission since 2021 on the transnational citizens deliberation called the conference on the future of Europe which was a very large participatory exercise in 2021, 2022. And what is interesting is that after that experience, the commission, the European Commission decided to embed the process in its policymaking. And since then, the Commission has organized and commissioned, look, now I have to turn eight more European citizens panels with the same format. And here what happens is over time you have kind of a continuity. So it's also another form of scaling. It's not because one of the panel has had impact. It's because the process itself is being embedded in the way your commission does policy and that's really really interesting. And of course all over those years what we have been learning is that a process is an iteration because we are in a kind of a democratic innovation space and it means that it's like a Apollo program or a rocket. The one you launch is going to explode And when you have launched 13 or 15 and then you manage to to have a product which which works or a system or an innovation network. So what we learned also that scaling was also a question of iterating on your own innovation, and that's being reflective and improving the process over time. And that's something that is still ongoing and maybe will go forever. But that's another dimension of scaling on how you scale the process itself the quality of the process. I know I told you the story of what we learned but it has been transformed since one half year into something else, and we can talk about it. Exactly. My question

Something that Maybe one thing to that's a big question which is still quite open. But we have the chance to to be in a European research and innovation project. I mean, a project from Horizon Europe. So a EU funded program which is called scale them and scale them is exactly that question of how do you scale democratic innovation so here we go from all those questions and learnings into a proper process of three and a half years and that we do with 13 partners across the EU and we are together exactly tackling that question of scaling. And what does it take to scale democratic innovations? What are the obstacles and leverages in doing so? And it's that's so born from our questioning around that and the question from many others of course because scaling is a is a very shared question in the in the field of democratic innovation. We had the chance to put together that project and we are working on it now since one and a half year. And maybe before I go on, we, in that project and more generally, we try to understand which kind of democratic innovations are around there. So there is a full part also about conceptuallyizing what kind of democratic innovation we're talking about. And because many of the most of the spotlights since, ten, fifteen years has been around deliberative democracy and the questions of many publics that we were talking about and that of course we are working mostly with but there are other ways to do democratic innovation there are a lot of things happening in electoral democratic innovation. It's about new algorithm for voting, about new ways to create campaigns and political campaigns, new ways to have party politics, I mean beyond electoral politics, beyond parties. So there are also a full lot of innovation there and scaling questions. There are the the another families of course the administrative, democratic innovation. How do you make administration more transparent, more responsive? And there are a lot of innovation happening here of course direct democracy is a big chunk of democratic innovation here too many many innovations happening all over the world And you have also, of course, the question of digital democracy and AI based democratic innovation, which also taking a lot of momentum and space around civic tech. And that question of how do you scale? And that's also a key question of those that family of innovation is how do you go from small numbers of involved people to very large numbers? So being mostly in digital democracy the question of scaling out so where you reach more people and so that's what we work on and indeed we work with with at the moment we have conceptualized those four dimensions of scaling I was kind of mentioning through the the story but I can I can give you a bit a bit more on that it's because we we are trying to understand how is scaling happening and we we have that that framework with those four dimensions so scaling out what I was mentioning is how an innovation is spreading kind of horizontally reaching more people new places, going from local to global, that kind of things, new policy areas? So, that's the scaling what we call the scaling out. Then there's the the scaling high is the question of, how do you integrate that into policy making? In the sense of, does it, what is the impact and the uptake of the results of the democratic innovation, of the what comes out of a democratic innovation process. Then we have the third dimension which is scaling deep. How does those democratic innovation also connect to people as emotional beings? As the culture around democratic innovation. Because as we know, we are human beings and human beings have a lot to do with emotions, not only with our cognitive brain, but we have the emotional brain and the body. So how does that happen? How does the democratic innovation connect to our bodies, which is very important nowadays. And we can come back to that a bit later in a moment of distrust towards classical liberal democracies but we we can we can come back to that. And then the fourth dimension is scaling in which I was mentioning at the end which was about how do you improve the process. So now you asked me about what have we learned we are at the beginning of that research as we still have some way to go but what we are trying to identify which are the kind of leverages that that make scaling in one dimension easier. And what are the blockages? And in terms of blockages, we can identify things like the administrative rules or rigid procedures lack of capacity so that kind of thing so we are at the moment now identifying those barriers those leverages. So it's a it's a work in progress and I'd be happy to report back in a year and a half when we have finally found out. But the question is really what you say is it's it's a dynamic process so in any case even if we we identify leverages and blockages it's a question of how people can, take that and work in their own context. That's also one of the the big questions. And, let's say that,

If I have a dream, no, it's it's really it's, it's a really important question because indeed we we see the the pressure on classical liberal democracies is is is building up. So there is a need to to understand what can be a good option, a good offering to citizens, because one of the key, of course, of that question is the distrust between the way decisions are taken and the lives of the people. And the so for me, if we manage to to scale, we manage to, so the the end goal is you have a situation in which people are happy to live in the political system they live in and really happy. It's not about only effectiveness output can be one dimension of that. They are happy because there are good policies but I think it's more than that it's also they're happy because they feel happy and it's something that has been a growing conviction on my part that I had that strange realization over time that if you look at liberal democracies they are really output oriented more and more because when you have an electoral cycle, the candidates, they promise to do stuff. And it's based on doing things that would improve the situation. And what is interesting is that populist candidates don't really do that. I mean, they do it too, but they have something more they offer than other don't, and it's belonging. So that's a very interesting for me thing to see. And there is good research on that, is the fact that if you look at the output of policies made by populists, they are not necessarily in the advantage or in the service at the service of the people who vote for them. So if we take an example in the in The US, for example, the the policies that are being implemented by the government at the moment are hurting the people that vote for that government. In a sense that they become poorer, for example, they are not becoming richer, it's more difficult for them. Inflation, there is more inflation. The tariffs are hurting their own interest and now the war and that kind of thing. So it's really interesting to but the the level of support is not decreasing as fast as you would imagine despite policies being of the output of the system being against the people they they vote for. And that's really interesting because that's something that does not happen in other liberal democracies where sometimes you have policies that objectively improve the situation of the people but at the same time the support is going down. So there is something which is a disconnection. And there is good research around the fact that also the what people want is belonging. And that's something that populists can offer very well and that all more classical liberal democracies have stopped offering. And it's the same with many other institutions like religions, I mean at least in Europe religions, party politics, and partisanship is something that has declined. Unions have declined. And it's where all those places of belonging. So over the time, I came to the realization and conviction that something that we we love and we need is belonging and that's also very well documented in the neurobiology and neurosciences that when we are together and and we we are in interaction, we start producing, hormones. We start producing oxytocin, which is that hormone of the well-being and, belonging and that kind of thing. And that happens when we are together and discuss things together. So in a way that, I mean, we know it. No? You humans are social beings and social species. So if you ask me what does a scaled democracy looks like, it's also a democracy that can help in that sense. But for that, you need indeed to offer something. And I think that democratic innovation can be one answer, can be part of the answer to offer that in different ways, in different kind of democratic innovations. So for me, a scaled system is the one in which each citizen has the the chance and the capacity to take part to those processes to take part to democratic which shouldn't be democratic innovation anymore but to democratic processes in different ways in different manners but then indeed it's a it's a huge challenge because now I had done the math. If you would like to have, let's take the European level for example, and you want each and every citizen to at least take one time part in such a deliberative process like a European citizens panel which is kind of the the place where citizens really have that interaction with EU policy which is impacting them. And if you imagine now at the moment you have two to four groups a year of 150 citizens. So you you have 300 to 600 citizens that are taking part to such an experience a year. And it's very strong as an experience of on on all the dimensions of scaling that I was mentioning before. Because when you ask people at the end of citizen's panel what they retain what they take home very often they don't, say that they have produced a list of very important or very smart recommendations. What they say is I feel European now. I mean, that's what they say. They feel European they understand what it is to be European and they feel it. And so imagine now that every European over the course of their life has the chance to take part at least once to such a process and then you would have indeed at the end four fifty million people feeding european. What a difference it would make because you could feel critically european but you I mean even you could go home with a very lot of critics or being against some of the the the policies but that feeling of belonging would be very different and I I play the math and it's a bit tricky because what you would need for imagine you you have you have your active citizenship between 16 and 80 let's say or yeah and and you have to go at least once in your life through such a process it would mean more or less that you would need to have every week, every weekend if we put that on weekend, 10 to 15,000 citizens taking part of such a ban. And what it means in terms of infrastructure, it would mean something like the Eiffel Tower or Euro Disney because these are the kind of infrastructure that see that kind of level of people. So the Eiffel Tower has 3,000,000 people a year and that's more or less what you would need so you would need to to build or to you would need to take over the the parliament in Strasbourg or in Brussels and transform it into a huge complex with you would have you would need a train station and an airport and you will need to to have 15,000 people a week going there but it's not impossible because because it's I mean physically it works at the Eiffel Tower. It works at Euro Disney, and it's, of course, as good an experience as Euro Disney, I suppose.

what do we need? So we need a chip in our brain to be even faster in coding. Now maybe one thing before I think so that's a very a very big question for me because the the question of physical embodiment and co presence is very very unique because that's when you produce that kind of bonding hormones and happiness which is not happening or less happening when you're online and almost not when you are async online. So there is a if we talk together now online you and me, we we we kind of create that kind of bonding. Not as much as if we're in the same group, but more than if we were interacting over messages or over social media. So you have a kind of a clear hierarchy of the the kind of level of engagement. By the way it's interesting because in the metaverse so when you are wearing a three d glasses in a three d environment you are almost at the level of the physical co presence. There are good experiences for example in in terms of when you train when you do sports training. There have been testing between training in a fitness studio with a trainer and then training at home alone and training in the Metaverse and the Metaverse is almost you spend almost as much calories as when you are in the with a trainer in the fitness studio so there is an effect on that. But for me it's a big difference if you really move the people because it's also where you you get to experience in your on your flesh bones and heart and mind that connection that that embodiment of what it means to to be together. But of course I'm with you that the decentralization or parallelization is of course one way to go is if you have thousands of local assemblies or so thousands of local processes they layer up like a lasagna. I'm you know myself to to take an Italian reference with you so it's because because then of course over the course of your life you would go one time here one time here one time here and of course then you you would have some kind of deliberations some types of online participation some kind of direct democratic so of course you build up a full system of engagement and and good experience with that which is not the case today because today we are really limited to elections and and that's the the the top of what you can do normally in terms of civic experience and and civic engagement. So that's that's of course it plays a role that you you have that those many breaks that are in in parallel. On the question of digital participation, for now I'm becoming more and more skeptical because of what you said. It's because of vibe coding. It's incredible what can be done. But also it's it's incredible what's happening. So if you I mean I have read a statistic that now it's estimated that at least a quarter of content on social media is synthetic so it's not human but it's artificial intelligence generated. And it's not even a question of it being a malevolent actors because more and more people have just their their agents, their their AI agent doing stuff for them online. And we are going to see more and more agents being active on social media, on on commerce platform, and everything. So it's not even only kind of disinformation misinformation but it's an evolution of how we use social media and what is going to happen is that you are going to have more and more synthetic content and less and less authentic or original content So if you base your system of participation or if you bet on digital participation you take the risk of having an infinite loop because it's going to be synthetic content which is going to be synthetic design and summarized by AI which are going to send that back to produce more content and you have kind of a loop so if you start basing some collective decision making on that you are going to have a drift between the synthetic loop and the real loop. And that's where I think it's very bit scary. And we really need to think about the value and the role of digital participation in all of that. And I said that after I mean, I was mentioning that the end of study, my end of study research was about random selection in politics. And I had called that the digital democratic democracy and I had imagined at that time that everyone would have a little box or little watch actually on their wrist that would be connected to the Internet and could vote on everything like a liquid democratic system. That was 2003. So there was no smartphone. And I was really convinced that it could be a way to go. But what I really hadn't in mind was the synthetic drift which I think is a really big warning. And we need really to understand what it means to be online. And then I would say the advantage, of course, is that the kind of ubiquity is something fantastic. So using online participation in synchronous systems or in synchronous way can be a very powerful system but I think it's we we need to be aware of what's happening with with AI and

We we tested that one. So first, when we do the the European students panel, there there's recessions, and the second one is online. So that's also something that is a good compromise because you do the first session on-site. People get to know each other, they get to bond, they get to create that dynamic, and then the second session is online so you you save costs of traveling you save a kind of logistical organization people are decentralized so it's also really that way of representing all over Europe having people and then for the third session they come back to Brussels so it's interesting because you have that back and forth between online and physical and I think that's that's very powerful and in 2020 we had a global citizens dialogue on the future of the internet and that dialogue was decentralized in over 75 countries of the world and we had because of the it was the year of the COVID pandemic so we had to invent a lot of hybrid formats and for example in in some countries what they did was to have the very small groups of five to seven which was the kind of upper limit of what was allowed in physical co presence and they were connected to the the plenary or to other subgroups. But they were in 521 Rwanda. We had 12 or 14 places in the country where the people were meeting locally on-site and they were connected, then all together for the plenary. That was a very good hybrid system because the group could talk with another in the subgroup and when it was plenary they could join together and and then go back and that was a good system. But of course there is one thing which with that is that in terms of of kind of experience if what you can't do with the two decentralized system is the transnational or trans local because of course you you don't have that experience of sitting near to a fin or italian if we take the Leupen level or a random person sitting together with a bolivian person that's something of course that you can't see it's more difficult although I think that is going to be also slowly solved with AI and that's the the positive things or dimension of AI with the upcoming of the bubble fish and the fact that we are going to have interpretation in a very easy way and that's going also to to to help those systems of transnational deliberation when you can have online and and in any case, be online and talk with someone who you don't understand the the language. So that that, of course, that has an advantage.

for Mission Public? Yeah. In terms of so in terms of scaling is, going so for us, the as mister David now for for for our work, we we see a couple of directions. And indeed one direction is the and if we take back the that scaling framework that I was talking about if we start with the end the scaling in so on the processes we think that there is a lot of work to still to be done on the experience for citizens so because if you take a referendum or if you take a classical process of democratic innovation a referendum is is is not really a perfect experience for a citizen because you you you have a yes and no you have to to position yourself so so the idea is how do we make it as good an experience as going to euro disney and not Grenip so there is a lot of work to be done on the attractiveness of those things the same with the deliberative process whether you make it not a very burdensome heavy process but something which is joy where you feel joy when you join and you're happy because it's good it's like a good party or a good concert And so I think there is there is some work to be done there. At the same time, and it's interconnected. It's also scaling in, but also a bit scaling in in out is how do you embed actors or stakeholders that are not there in any of those democratic innovations we for example have it's starting but children I mean they are not really heard in all those systems but you can even extend so future generations they have a stake in what we decide today but they are not embedded in those processes so for us scaling is also breaking that wall and going further and understanding who should be part of that discussion and and if we talk about future generations we also should talk about the very long term so for us a big question is intergenerational decision making how do we create and extend decision collective decision making into that intergenerational dimension and which also means and for us this is another very important field of experimentation research is how do we extend to more than human because of course as humans we have a lot of impact on our environment but we have no good way to get the environment to talk in those processes of collective decision making so how do we iterate? How do we think about to embed those more than human voices into democratic innovations and collective decision making? So that's why it's a big chunk of work. And then of course there is the full question which we address started to address of AI and the future of kind of work because what is happening now and we see it is that AI seems not to be the same story if time with those kind of disruptive technologies because there is a strong discourse about AI being like electricity or steam engine that it's going to displace a lot of jobs but at the end it's going to to end up being a net positive on employment on value creation on that kind of thing. But it seems that this time may be different because, AI is kind of a transversal technology. So it's not sectorial. It's not about energy or production or transportation. It's about everything so every layer is impacted because it's about commoditization of intelligence and knowledge and that's something that that is in any kind of work and if you add up on that the fact that we are approaching embodied ai with robotics we are going to see that even there where you would say it has no impact because it's purely let's say mind and not body we are going to see also a shift here. I mean, it's happening already. So it's a very important question for us to understand. If AI is that kind of transformative evolution, how do we govern it and how do we talk about the value that is produced and where the value goes? And for me, at least scaling in terms of democratic innovation is partly thinking about how do we manage that revolution and understand how we redistribute, how we talk about value distribution with very new ways of collective decision. Because at the moment the classical way it is being handled is either because it's a private company which which can decide what to do with with the the value they create. So it's a very it's a system which I was mentioning at the beginning it's a market driven system and very often a hierarchical system in in companies, which I mean is pure it's very legitimate in in the the in many cases. But the question is what happens if it's about the full value chain of the society? And the other way it's being done at the moment is through regulation and and through international negotiation. But here too there is a big issue which is those processes do not include the end users in the in the we could call them the end users but actually it's the impacted people the citizens and here for us scaling is also about entering those arena of discussions and understanding how we can take those collective decisions with the citizens. So that's on the agenda and, yeah, working on it, as you were saying.

I think it's it's interesting because, I would I would put it as part of the democratic innovation on electoral system and the way that political parties could enter that but at the same time it's already the case I mean if you if you look in many places and I'm not an expert on that but if you start with the the campaign from Barack Obama and and going from there I mean the kind of innovations they have implemented to go get people that were not voting to do those canvassing systems to do that messaging. You have had a lot of innovation in that in the band in a good way because also that it has been used as we know through the Cambridge Analytica scandal to really indeed target people to move the needle based on data collected on social media. So I think there have been a lot of innovation There have been also a lot of changes if you take France and the explosion of the traditional landscape of political parties. Macron, they call it a movement, not a party. In Italy, you had the stringo steles. And all these are movements and not parties. So that's interesting because they kind of use the when they go to elections, but with different logics. And I think that there could be very interesting innovation there. I mean, in Germany, there have been a lot of innovation in the 2010 with liquid democracy. The parrot party. They had a system of liquid democracy where you could delegate your vote to your candidates and take them back. But there is the thing is and also some, for example, the spd so the the progressive party in Germany they also had a lot of trials with more deliberative approaches to program crafting we have been working in France with the with the green party and the socialist party where they had a deliberative process with randomly selected citizens to help draft the program which was really interesting because it was also about having people that are not classical supporters of that party working on the program of the party. And that was really really interesting to see how then the program evolved a bit based on a broader view and not only people who were already convinced in a way. So I think there are a lot of interactions between the different families of democratic innovation for party politics. At the same time I see a very huge challenge which is the problem is the kind of self not self fulfilling prophecy but the loop because people have less trust in parties. So if you come with a new party you you kind of start with the distrust. So and then you you may win or lose and then you will be caught in in the reality of what it means to to make policies. And maybe it's even worse than because you you promised something new. I don't know. So but on that I think the the question is but still no the the the key question is at some point in our democratic systems you you have to be in charge through votes to do something. So when you ask for political parties, yes, it seems to be a must at some point to kind of gain the institutional positioning that you need to take decisions. But yeah. So is it clear?

I mean, that's the basic tension, no, about, about power. Say, how do we do we manage to, it's not new, of course. It's an eternal question. And how do you keep enough check and balances on power to to keep innovation and to prevent things to be too hard and not being able to let power flow, which is the biggest problem that we kind of ever had, since we have massive societies.

collective dream, let's say. I think so. One thing one thing is, think about joy and and and joy. Yeah. How do we bring joy to people? By doing what we do. Because it's about at the end it's about joy. And I think when we if we if we focus on that we can we can do we can think a bit differently about how we do stuff so it's not about something very serious it's of course it's serious but it's also about,

Of course, I invite you to go to see our scheduled project. Maybe you can put it in the show notes, something like that because that's what we are doing now, and we are happy to have contributions. We are happy to be in interaction in that. And for the wise, yeah, feel free to to get in touch. Thank you again.