There's been some research on adding a "deliberative" component to the entire process. http://cdd.stanford.edu/ http://cdd.stanford.edu/. This apparently result

There's been some research on adding a "deliberative" component to the entire process. http://cdd.stanford.edu/ http://cdd.stanford.edu/. This apparently results in different outcomes than mere voting does. There's obviously the question of whether "different" is in fact "better" and how the deliberative process is structured, but given that debate and discussion appears to be an important part of DemocracyOS, I wonder if there's any way to build upon the existing research here. If we assume that entering a war tends to be more of a rash impulsive, decision than in abstaining from violence, then building DemocracyOS in such a way so as to encourage deliberation could reduce the odds of people voting for war (or, if they do vote for war, assure others that the war is being waged for careful, thought-out reasons). Also, the Lawrence Lessig refrain that "code is law" seems particularly applicable here.