Two great questions. I would start by saying that the practice of deliberative polling has always worked with academic, scrupulously neutral partners. In Taiwan's case it was no different. We worked with James Fishkin's Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford, and with local Taiwan universities. The g0v movement, which began in Taiwan, convened that system at the National Academy — Academia Sinica — which is generally seen as above any party or political minister for that method. In a place where institutions like Oxford exist that are above and beyond parties, this becomes easier, because people can agree on a procedural basis. If the university or the national academy keeps running the same method regardless of who is in power, which mayor, which minister consults it, then it creates a continuous norm that costs real political capital to challenge.