The phrase “democratic assemblies” easily becomes confusing when related to Personalized Democracy (PD).

In general, Personalized Democracy is focused more around individuals than groups. Asking Google to define it:

A democratic, or “popular" assembly is typically a gathering that addresses what participants feel are the effects of a democratic deficit in representative democratic systems. Sometimes assemblies are created to form an alternative power structure.

The KEY factor behind the assembly is that they expect to take “votes” on issues. The “winner” is determined by some form of “majority”.

In criticisms of “democracy”, the idea of a “majority vote”, of any kind, is that it creates a “tyranny of the majority”. The example often given to show an extremely negative case of this is a “Lynch mob”.

In Personalized Democracy, there is never any voting. What would be done in a PD “democratic assembly” is:

• Issues are raised
• Individuals get to speak about the issues
• When it comes time for “action”, EVERY person involved in the assembly submits their opinion or viewpoint. This is where computers win the day. The result is more like a survey.
• The organizers then “summarize” the responses.
• THEN, what makes PD different, “no single decision is made. The organizers must then take the survey back to a “systems group” that tries to determine what kind of actions can be taken so that “ALL” of the opinions and viewpoints are “positively addressed for action” within the constraints of “principles”. Some examples of the principles are: sustainability, equity, morals, financial resources, skills availability, etc.