Deliberation Day is a proposed national holiday in the United States aimed at enhancing democratic engagement through structured public discussions prior to major elections. Conceived by the constitutional law scholar Bruce Ackerman and the political scientist James S. Fishkin, who laid out the rationale for their proposal in their 2005 book, Deliberation Day, [1] the initiative seeks to foster informed citizen participation in the electoral process. [2]
Ackerman and Fishkin propose that Deliberation Day would occur two weeks before major elections, with government-sponsored events held in accessible community spaces such as schools and civic centers. Attendees would engage in structured conversations facilitated by trained moderators. The day’s schedule would be divided into sessions featuring discussions among small groups, large assemblies for expert presentations, and question-and-answer segments with political representatives. [3] Participants would receive financial compensation to incentivize broad involvement, particularly among individuals less inclined toward political participation. [4]
Deliberation Day would offer participants access to balanced briefing materials and expert insights, enabling them to make well-informed decisions at the polls. This approach addresses the issue of voters making choices based on limited or biased information, thereby enhancing the overall quality of electoral outcomes. [4]
Supporters argue that Deliberation Day would deepen democratic engagement. By allocating time for citizens to deliberate on electoral matters, the initiative aims to transform passive voters into active participants. This process encourages individuals to consider diverse perspectives, leading to more informed voting decisions. Experiments in deliberative democracy have shown that such engagement reduces polarization and fosters mutual respect among participants, even amid significant disagreements. [5]
Deliberation Day seeks to elevate the quality of public discourse by providing a platform for reasoned discussion. In small groups, citizens would deliberate on key campaign issues, guided by balanced informational materials and moderated discussions. This structure ensures that various viewpoints are considered, promoting a more comprehensive understanding of complex topics. Such deliberative settings have been found to prevent discussions from devolving into unproductive arguments, instead facilitating productive exchanges where participants are open to changing their minds based on new evidence. [4]
In an era marked by increasing political polarization, supporters argue that Deliberation Day offers a means to bridge divides. By bringing together individuals from diverse backgrounds to discuss political issues, the initiative encourages empathy and reduces partisan animosity. Deliberative processes have been shown to blunt polarization, as participants listen to and respect differing viewpoints, fostering a more cohesive society. [5]
Critics of the proposed holiday cite the substantial financial burden associated with compensating participants. Providing monetary incentives to all citizens nationwide could lead to significant expenses for governmental institutions. Additionally, organizing such a large-scale event presents logistical complexities, including the recruitment and training of moderators, securing appropriate venues, and ensuring equitable access across diverse communities. [6]
Empirical studies suggest that deliberation among like-minded individuals can lead to group polarization, where discussions reinforce and intensify pre-existing views, resulting in more extreme positions. For instance, an experiment involving citizens from predominantly liberal and conservative cities demonstrated that intra-group deliberation increased ideological divisions, reducing diversity of thought within groups. [7]
Critics argue that Deliberation Day may inadvertently reinforce existing political structures, particularly the two-party system, by relying on major political parties to organize and manage deliberative sessions. This reliance could marginalize alternative viewpoints and limit the scope of discussions, thereby constraining the deliberative process. [8]
Ensuring fair and balanced deliberation is another significant challenge. The assumption that structured time limits and the presence of moderators can guarantee equitable participation may be overly optimistic. In practice, discussions could be dominated by more vocal participants, leading to unequal representation of perspectives and potential conflicts among participants. [6]
Writer and activist Naomi Wolf endorsed the idea in 2008, citing studies that describe 3 of every 4 participants finding their deliberative experience very valuable. [9]
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 constituted the core of the 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.
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, participative democracy, or semi-direct 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.
Applied philosophy is a branch of philosophy that studies philosophical problems of practical concern. The topic covers a broad spectrum of issues in environment, medicine, science, engineering, policy, law, politics, economics and education. The term was popularised in 1982 by the founding of the Society for Applied Philosophy by Brenda Almond, and its subsequent journal publication Journal of Applied Philosophy edited by Elizabeth Brake. Methods of applied philosophy are similar to other philosophical methods including questioning, dialectic, critical discussion, rational argument, systematic presentation, thought experiments and logical argumentation.
Cass Robert Sunstein is an American legal scholar known for his work in constitutional law, administrative law, environmental law, and behavioral economics. He is also The New York Times best-selling author of The World According to Star Wars (2016) and Nudge (2008). He was the administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration from 2009 to 2012.
The Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform was created by the government of British Columbia, Canada to investigate changes to the provincial electoral system. On October 25, 2004, the citizens' assembly proposed replacing the province's existing first past the post (FPTP) system with BC-STV, a single transferable vote (STV) system. This recommendation was put to the electorate in a referendum in 2005 held during that year's provincial election. The provincial government required the referendum to achieve a super-majority of 60 percent of voters and simple majorities in 60 percent of the 79 districts in order to pass. The second of these thresholds was easily met, with a majority supporting the reform in 77 out of 79 electoral districts, but the overall vote fell short of the 60 percent requirement, with 57.69 percent of the votes in favour. A second referendum in 2009 on adopting the STV system also failed to pass carrying 8 electoral districts and 39.09 percent of the overall 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.
The National Issues Forums (NIF) is a US-based non partisan, nationwide network of civic, educational, and other organizations and individuals whose common interest is to promote public deliberation in America. NIF sponsors public forums and training institutions for public deliberation." Everyday citizens get to deliberate on various issues through NIF forums. Some of the issues discussed include civil rights, education, energy, government, etc. "Think, Deliberate, Act" is the slogan on the NIF.
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.
Televoting is a method of decision making and opinion polling conducted by telephone. Televoting can also extend to voting by SMS text message via a mobile cell phone.
Bruce Arnold Ackerman is an American pragmatist legal scholar who serves as a Sterling Professor at Yale Law School. In 2010, he was named by Foreign Policy magazine to its list of top global thinkers. Ackerman was also among the unranked bottom 40 in the 2020 Prospect list of the top 50 thinkers for the COVID-19 era.
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.
Public consultation, public comment, or simply consultation, is a process by which members of the public are asked for input on public issues. This can occur in public meetings open to all in written form, as well as in deliberative groups. Surveys and deliberative groups can be conducted with self-selected citizens or with statistically representative samples of the population which enables the identification of majority opinion. Its main goals are to improve public involvement and influence, as well as the transparency and efficiency of government projects, laws, or regulations.
Radical democracy is a type of democracy that advocates the radical extension of equality and liberty. Radical democracy is concerned with a radical extension of equality and freedom, following the idea that democracy is an unfinished, inclusive, continuous and reflexive process.
CaliforniaSpeaks was a statewide nonpartisan deliberative forum on health care reform that took place on August 11, 2007. More than 2,000 Californians gathered in "town meetings" at eight locations, including Eureka, Fresno, Los Angeles, Oakland, Riverside, Sacramento, San Diego, and San Luis Obispo. It was organized by the nonprofit AmericaSpeaks, and was funded by The California Endowment, The California Wellness Foundation, and the Blue Shield of California Foundation. In 2007, it was described as "one of the world's biggest ever public engagement processes" by a UK public participation charity. A 2015 article in the journal Political Communication has described it as a "natural experiment" in structured deliberation.
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 at random, i.e. by lottery, in order to obtain a representative sample.
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 types of deliberative mini-publics include citizens' jury, citizens' panel, people's panel, people's jury, policy jury, consensus conference and citizens' convention.
Oral democracy is a talk-based form of government and political system in which citizens of a determined community have the opportunity to deliberate, through direct oral engagement and mass participation, in the civic and political matters of their community. Additionally, oral democracy represents a form of direct democracy, which has the purpose of empowering citizens by creating open spaces that promote an organized process of discussion, debate, and dialogue that aims to reach consensus and to impact policy decision-making. Political institutions based on this idea of direct democracy seek to decrease the possibilities of state capture from elites by holding them accountable, to encourage civic participation and collective action, and to improve the efficiency and adaptability of development interventions and public policy implementation.
America in One Room was a 2019 event that assembled the largest representative sample of the American voting electorate in history to discuss polarizing political issues. It utilized a method called deliberative polling, led by Stanford Professors James Fishkin and Larry Diamond of the Center for Deliberative Democracy. The event was funded and operated by Helena, an organization that implements projects to address global challenges.