Politics doesn't have to be about rage. In Citizen Assemblies, the curated context of working on a common task allows people with opposing views to find common ground. Sharing meals and listening transforms abstract opponents into human beings, making reconciliation and even friendship possible.

While seemingly a threat to established power, Ireland's use of citizen assemblies actually reconciled the public with the political system. By integrating lot-based democracy for contentious issues like same-sex marriage, politicians gained legitimacy, making it an ironic case where the reform strengthened the very system it was meant to supplement or replace.

The defining characteristic of a functional democracy is not who wins, but the behavior of those who lose. A democracy is healthy only when the losing side accepts the result as legitimate and agrees to compete again in the future. The moment losers begin to systematically challenge the fairness of the process, the entire democratic foundation is at risk.

Effective activism doesn't try to persuade politicians or stage a revolution. Instead, it should 'inject a retrovirus': build and run privately-funded alternative institutions (like citizens' assemblies) that operate on a different logic. By demonstrating a better way of doing things, this strategy creates demand and allows new institutional 'DNA' to spread organically.

Effective citizen assemblies require experts, but not in their traditional, top-down authoritative role. Experts must learn to be "on tap, not on top"—simplifying their language and responding to citizens' needs rather than dictating solutions. This creates a difficult but necessary learning curve, shifting the expert's role from a leader to a service provider.

Citizen assemblies don't require pre-existing expertise from participants. The inclusion of diverse individuals, like the homeless or elderly, changes the conversation's nature, fosters empathy, and provides a therapeutic function for the political body. This emotional and social bonding is considered at least as important as technical problem-solving.

Demanding empirical proof of a group's competence before granting them political power is a historical tactic used to disenfranchise people. Citing W.E.B. Du Bois, political scientist Hélène Landemore argues that true democracy requires a leap of faith: you must trust people with power first, and they will rise to the occasion and educate themselves.

The desire for connection and necessary skills often already exist within a group. A leader's role is not to construct community, but to create the conditions—like providing a shared space or a clear invitation—that activate these latent connections and allow them to flourish.

Expecting politicians to vote themselves out of a job is unrealistic. The path to reform is a bottom-up approach, using numerous local citizen assemblies to prove their value. When politicians realize these assemblies can solve problems and reconcile people with the system, they will adopt them to secure their own legitimacy and hold onto power.