Abstract
This study proposes a new information infrastructure for policy discourse. Recent literature on decision support systems evokes the need for an alternative approach to the traditional normative model of public consensus-making. This study has thus introduced an argumentation model based on informal logic. This model was incorporated into CRANES, a group support system that primarily aims to visualize the balance of public arguments. CRANES was then applied to two sets of public arguments: one about an urban regeneration scheme in London; and the other about an infrastructure development project in Japan. Results support the technical feasibility of the system as an alternative public medium for promoting participative policy-making.
