This chapter maps similarities and differences of the recent Icelandic and Irish constitutional processes and seeks to draw lessons from them. Both were instigated in the wake of crisis, and each can offer directions in designing deliberative democracy so that it serves to augment contemporary systems of representative democracy. In Iceland, the proposing body was nationally elected, while in Ireland, it was trusted to a mostly randomly selected body. The task of the Icelandic Constitutional Council was far more ambitious, while it was much more limited in scope in Ireland. In Iceland, Parliament was firmly kept at bay in the drafting process while MPs were directly involved. One of the main lessons from Ireland indicates that involving politicians in the process can help to secure output legitimacy. The chapter closes with a suggestion of restarting the Icelandic process with calling for a Constitutional Assembly comprising of randomly selected citizens and representatives of political parties in Parliament.