This chapter offers a “semi-revisionist” take on deliberative minipublics (citizens’ assemblies, juries, or panels) and their role in democratic systems. While evidence confirms that minipublics foster reasoned dialogue and sometimes meaningfully shift opinions, they do not necessarily guarantee equal participation or avoid group biases. Disadvantaged and less confident participants may be silenced, and genuine learning can remain uneven. On the macro level, high-profile examples and increased political uptake illustrate how minipublics can influence policy agendas, yet top-down processes often dominate. Political elites may cherry-pick recommendations, and most nonparticipants remain largely unaware of these forums’ detailed deliberations. Moreover, despite the OECD’s optimistic data, public support for empowering minipublics to replace traditional institutions is modest. Instead, citizens generally prefer them to serve in an advisory capacity integrated into existing representative structures. The chapter argues that minipublics should be more attentive to inclusivity and context, serve as “nudges” or trust-based advisors, and be viewed as one component of a broader “discursive infrastructure” rather than a standalone cure for democratic ills.