Citizens' Initiative Review

Last updated

A Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR) is a small, relatively representative panel that deliberates on a ballot initiative or referendum to be decided in an upcoming election in order to produce a useful (typically one-page) summary for voters.

Contents

Process

The panelists are chosen through means such as random sampling and stratified sampling to be demographically representative. [1] This often involves paying for the time and travel of the roughly two dozen participants. [2] While not quite a citizens' assembly according to John Rountree and Nicole Curato, they note it shares many of the same characteristics. [3]

A trained moderator oversees the discussions. Over a few days, panelists deliberate among themselves and question experts and advocates on all sides of the initiative. The panelists write a statement in a form that can be made available by including it in the voter's pamphlet or guide. This statement summarizes the best arguments, pros, and cons and lists the number of panelists who recommended voting for and against the initiative. [4]

Purpose

A Citizens' Initiative Review aims to strengthen the quality and impact of the public voice in elections and government decisions. [5] It helps to fill an information gap when much of the discourse might come from advertisements or spokespersons from a campaign. [6] Under a CIR, voters are sent a one-pager of citizens' findings about facts as well as pros and cons about the proposed initiative after careful study and deliberation. [4] Vote tallies of the participants' final position on the issue have fallen out of favor given the groups often aren't large enough to be statistically significant.

Evaluation

Academic research reported that CIR panelists achieved high-quality deliberation. [7] Voters became aware of those deliberations through voters' pamphlets and found the statement to be helpful to their decisions, and voter knowledge about the initiatives increased. [8] [9] The panelists themselves developed new attitudes about the political process and their capabilities. [10]

In practice

The state of Oregon created the first permanent Citizens' Initiative Review in 2010, while pilots have been run in places including Colorado, [11] Arizona, [12] Massachusetts, [13] Sion (Switzerland) [14] and Finland. [9] Funding has not been permanently allocated in Oregon, so the application has been limited to one ballot measure on the years when funding has been provided.

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Direct democracy</span> Form of democracy

Direct democracy or pure democracy is a form of democracy in which the electorate decides on policy initiatives without elected representatives as proxies. This differs from the majority of currently established democracies, which are representative democracies. The theory and practice of direct democracy and participation as its common characteristic was the core of work of many theorists, philosophers, politicians, and social critics, among whom the most important are Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Stuart Mill, and G.D.H. Cole.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deliberation</span> Process of thoughtfully weighing options, usually prior to voting

Deliberation is a process of thoughtfully weighing options, for example prior to voting. Deliberation emphasizes the use of logic and reason as opposed to power-struggle, creativity, or dialogue. Group decisions are generally made after deliberation through a vote or consensus of those involved.

Deliberative democracy or discursive democracy is a form of democracy in which deliberation is central to decision-making. Deliberative democracy seeks quality over quantity by limiting decision-makers to a smaller but more representative sample of the population that is given the time and resources to focus on one issue.

Participatory democracy, participant democracy or participative democracy is a form of government in which citizens participate individually and directly in political decisions and policies that affect their lives, rather than through elected representatives. Elements of direct and representative democracy are combined in this model.

In the politics of the United States, the process of initiatives and referendums allow citizens of many U.S. states to place legislation on the ballot for a referendum or popular vote, either enacting new legislation, or voting down existing legislation. Citizens, or an organization, might start an initiative to gather a predetermined number of signatures to qualify the measure for the ballot. The measure is placed on the ballot for the referendum, or actual vote.

A deliberative opinion poll, sometimes called a deliberative poll, is a form of opinion poll taken before and after significant deliberation. Professor James S. Fishkin of Stanford University first described the concept in 1988. The typical deliberative opinion poll takes a random, representative sample of citizens and engages them in deliberation on current issues or proposed policy changes through small-group discussions and conversations with competing experts to create more informed and reflective public opinion. Deliberative polls have been run around the world, including recent experiments to conduct discussions virtually in the United States, Hong Kong, Chile, Canada and Japan.

Anticipatory exclusion refers to a citizen's decision not to attend a discussion due to the anticipation of being excluded. The citizen would never take part in a discussion because they believe that their views and perspectives wouldn't be given equal time or consideration, when compared to dominant views. In other words, the fear of being excluded, discounted, or dismissed causes a person to decline an opportunity to attend a public event. Calling this "exclusion" implies that the individual's personal decision not to participate actually reflects a larger historical pattern of active exclusion toward similar individuals.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2006 Colorado Amendment 38</span>

Amendment 38 was a measure on the 2006 ballot in Colorado. If passed, it would have amended the Colorado Constitution. It would have extend the petition process to all levels of state government to expand citizens' ability to propose changes to state laws and local ordinances or resolutions.

AmericaSpeaks was a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization from 1995-2014 whose mission was to "engage citizens in the public decisions that impact their lives." AmericaSpeaks' work was focused on trying to create opportunities for citizens to impact decisions and to encourage public officials to make better informed, lasting decisions. AmericaSpeaks has developed and facilitated deliberative methods such as the 21st Century Town Hall Meeting, which enables facilitated discussion for groups of 500 participants or larger. Carolyn Lukensmeyer was the President and Founder of AmericaSpeaks. Partners of the organization have included regional planning groups, governmental bodies of varying size and scope, and organizations from across the globe. Issues discussed by AmericaSpeaks have ranged from Social Security reform, to the redevelopment of ground zero in New York City and rebuilding New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">James S. Fishkin</span> American political scientist and communications scholar

James S. Fishkin is an American political scientist and communications scholar. He holds the Janet M. Peck Chair in International Communication in the Department of Communication at Stanford University, where he serves as a professor of communication and, by courtesy, political science. He also acts as the director of Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab. Fishkin is widely cited for his work on deliberative democracy, with his proposition of Deliberative Polling in 1988 being particularly influential. Together with Robert Luskin, Fishkin's work has led to over 100 deliberative polls in 28 countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">2008 Oregon elections</span>

On November 4, 2008, the U.S. state of Oregon held statewide general elections for three statewide offices, both houses of the Oregon Legislative Assembly, and twelve state ballot measures. The primary elections were held on May 20, 2008. Both elections also included national races for President of the US, US Senator, and US House Representatives. Numerous local jurisdictions — cities, counties, and regional government entities — held elections for various local offices and ballot measures on these days as well.

Mediated deliberation is a form of deliberation that is achieved through the media which acts as a mediator between the mass public and elected officials. The communication professionals of the media relay information, values, and diverse points of view to the public in order for effective public deliberation to occur. Benjamin Page proposes mediated deliberation be a "division of labor" with the idea of using the media to deliver information between the elected officials and the public because modern problems make it impossible to rely on the elected officials to deliberate for the public. The role of the media is to encourage discussion amongst the citizens to keep them engaged with their elected officials.

In governance, sortition is the selection of public officials or jurors using a random representative sample. This minimizes factionalism, since those selected to serve can prioritize deliberating on the policy decisions in front of them instead of campaigning.

Buckley v. American Constitutional Law Foundation, Inc., 525 U.S. 182 (1999), was a United States Supreme Court case that dealt with the authority of states to regulate the electoral process, and the point at which state regulations of the electoral process violate the First Amendment freedoms.

Direct democracy refers to decision making or direct vote a proposal, law, or political issue by the electorate, rather than being voted on by representatives in a state or local legislature or council.

A citizens' assembly is a group of people selected by lottery from the general population to deliberate on important public questions so as to exert an influence. Other names and variations include citizens' jury, citizens' panel, people's panel, mini-publics,people's jury, policy jury, consensus conference and citizens' convention.

Online deliberation is a broad term used to describe many forms of non-institutional, institutional and experimental online discussions. The term also describes the emerging field of practice and research related to the design, implementation and study of deliberative processes that rely on the use of electronic information and communications technologies (ICT).

The Jane Mansbridge bibliography includes books, book chapters and journal articles by Jane Mansbridge, the Charles F. Adams Professor of Political Leadership and Democratic Values, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.

John Gastil currently holds a joint appointment as Professor of Communication Arts & Sciences and Professor of Political Science at Penn State University. He is known for his research on deliberative democracy and group decision making.

A deliberative referendum is a referendum that increases public deliberation through purposeful institutional design. The term "deliberative referendum" stems from deliberative democracy, which emphasises that "the legitimacy of decisions can be increased if...decisions are preceded by authentic deliberation." Deliberative design features can promote public deliberation prior to and during the referendum vote to increase its actual and perceived legitimacy. Deliberative referendums encourage open-minded and informed reasoning, rather than rigid "pre-formed opinions". "[A]fter deliberations, citizens routinely alter their preferences".

References

  1. ↑ Gastil, John; Richards, Robert; Knobloch, Katherine (2 January 2014). "Vicarious Deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review Influenced Deliberation in Mass Elections". International Journal of Communication. 8: 28. ISSN   1932-8036.
  2. ↑ "Citizens' Initiative Review | Government Innovators Network". www.innovations.harvard.edu. Archived from the original on August 12, 2020.
  3. ↑ Reuchamps, Min; Vrydagh, Julien; Welp, Yanina, eds. (2023-05-31), De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens' Assemblies, De Gruyter, doi: 10.1515/9783110758269 , ISBN   978-3-11-075826-9 . Section 6.3.
  4. 1 2 Drury, Sara A. Mehltretter; Rountree, John (2023-03-24). "The Genre of Deliberative Guidance: Rhetoric and Deliberation in Citizens' Initiative Review Statements". Western Journal of Communication: 1–22. doi:10.1080/10570314.2023.2183777. ISSN   1057-0314. S2CID   257744718.
  5. ↑ Knobloch, Katherine R. (August 1, 2013). "Evaluating a New Governing Institution: An Assessment of the Citizens' Initiative Review". National Communication Association .
  6. ↑ Gastil, John. "Beyond Endorsements and Partisan Cues: Giving Voters Viable Alternatives to Unreliable Cognitive Shortcuts." The Good Society , vol. 23 no. 2, 2014, p. 145-159. Project MUSEmuse.jhu.edu/article/564743. (pdf)
  7. ↑ Katherine R. Knobloch, John Gastil, Justin Reedy, and Katherine Cramer Walsh, "Did They Deliberate? Applying an Evaluative Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review." Jan. 9, 2013. Journal of Applied Communication Research . (pdf)
  8. ↑ Knobloch, Katherine R.; Gastil, John; Feller, Traci; Richards, Robert C.; Jr, Robert C. (2014-10-31). "Empowering Citizen Deliberation in Direct Democratic Elections: A Field Study of the 2012 Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review". Field Actions Science Reports. The Journal of Field Actions (in French) (Special Issue 11). ISSN   1867-139X.
  9. 1 2 Gastil, John; Ársælsson, Kristinn Már; Knobloch, Katherine R.; Brinker, David L.; Richards, Robert C.; Reedy, Justin; Burkhalter, Stephanie (2023-07-27). Daoust, Jean-François (ed.). "Deliberative panels as a source of public knowledge: A large-sample test of the Citizens' Initiative Review". PLOS ONE. 18 (7): e0288188. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288188 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   10374050 . PMID   37498894.
  10. ↑ Knobloch, Katherine R.; Gastil, John (June 2015). "Civic (Re)socialisation: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation". Politics. 35 (2): 183–200. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.12069. ISSN   0263-3957. S2CID   55960698.
  11. ↑ Estabrook, Rachel (October 20, 2014). "Experiment to help voters understand Colorado ballot measures | CPR". Colorado Public Radio . Archived from the original on 2015-01-03. Retrieved 2017-07-21.
  12. ↑ Gastil, J., Reedy, J., Morrell, M., & Anderson, C. (2016). Assessment of the 2016 Arizona Citizens’ Initiative Review Pilot on Proposition 205. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University. Available online at http://sites.psu.edu/citizensinitiativereview . (pdf)
  13. ↑ Emanuel, Gabrielle (2018-10-22). "Lawmakers Consider Including 'Citizens' Statements' In The State's Voter Guide". News. Retrieved 2023-06-25.
  14. ↑ "Do you trust your fellow citizens more than your leaders?". SWI swissinfo.ch. 2020-01-23. Retrieved 2023-06-25.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.