Deliberative opinion poll

Last updated

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. [1] 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. [2]

Contents

Process

The Deliberative Democracy Lab at Stanford University described its process as: [3]

  1. A random, representative sample is first polled on the issue(s)
  2. Members of the sample are invited to gather in order to discuss the issue(s) (online or in-person)
  3. Carefully balanced briefing materials are sent to the participants and are also made publicly available (along with other aspects of the deliberations).
  4. The participants talk to competing experts and political leaders, asking questions they develop in small group discussions with trained moderators.
  5. The sample is again polled (with a private questionnaire) on the original questions. The resulting changes in opinion represent the conclusions the public would likely reach, if they had opportunity to participate in the deliberative process. By measuring both before and after judgments, policymakers and the media have more insight into the process and its impacts on participants. [4]

Fishkin argues that during deliberation, discussions should strive for political equality, where everyone's voice is given equal consideration. This can be achieved through discussions that: [5]

Logistically, deliberative opinion polls are very similar to other deliberative gatherings like citizens' assemblies. [6] A couple areas where deliberative polling might differ is that a deliberative poll always has 100 to 200 participants, to ensure a statistically significant sample. In addition, deliberative polling emphasizes measuring opinion change after receiving new information and discussion rather than finding common areas of agreement or concrete policy proposals. [1] The goal is to allow the researcher to get a reliable estimate of citizens' preferences both as-is and after an extensive process of deliberation about an issue. [7] Experiments in online polling using an AI moderator have led study authors to conclude that the AI model tested was as effective as human moderators according to participant evaluations, allowing polls to be conducted more often at a reduced cost. [8] While in-person deliberations should pay for childcare, venues, moderators, hotels, and stipends to achieve a representative sample, online deliberations seem only need to offer increased bandwidth, technical support, newer devices and a smaller stipend to participants. [8]

Examples

Online

In 2019, the Deliberative Democracy Lab and the Helena Group launched America in One Room, a deliberative poll of a representative sample of 526 Americans on various issues. [9] Polling results found that in general voters seemed to move towards the center after their experience, with an effect lasting at least one year after the in-person gathering. [10] Subsequent deliberative polls have been conducted online in groups of 10 using an AI moderator. [11]

In person

In the mid-to-late 2000s, Fishkin's team selected a representative sample of the Chinese coastal township of Zeguo (pop. 120,000) in Wenling. Deliberative polling took place over a one- to three-day period after which recommendations were implemented. Most accounts found the pilot successful, leading to an expanded scope beyond public works projects to a process that determined the budget each year. [12] [13]

Between 1996 and 1998, Fishkin managed deliberative opinion polls for electric utilities in Texas as part of the state's integrated resource planning process. The participants underwent a significant shift in the percentage who agreed that it was worth higher costs to invest in energy efficiency and renewable resources. Those findings led to a higher renewable energy portfolio standard, shifting the utilities' focus toward energy efficiency and renewables, resulting in a relatively high percentage of wind power compared to other states. [12] [14] [15]

Impacts

On decision-makers

Deliberative polling can serve as important input mechanisms upstream in the policy making process. [6] Fishkin does not advocate using deliberative polls for every public concern. For instance, crisis measures that demand instant decisions may not be appropriate. [1] However, he advocates using it for most tasks, [16] which could include the hiring of crisis managers.

Some, like Lafont, see voting where everyone can participate as more legitimate than random selection of decision-makers. Fishkin believes that once most skeptics experience a well-run deliberative process that they would find it more legitimate than elections. Both believe that legitimacy is improved if the public can see all the inputs (including briefing materials) that led to the decision, so that others can be included in the reasoning for and against to know whether their views were given a fair hearing. [17] As both group dynamics and personalities of participants can play an important role in producing different outcomes of discussions, implementation is important for successful, legitimate deliberation. [18] [19] [20]

On participants

Participants can come to learn and appreciate the circumstances and interests of competing arguments through extended discussions and deliberations. This can be achieved by:

  1. randomly assigning participants into small groups and
  2. having impartial moderators to ensure all the major arguments for and against major policy options are covered. [1]

While participants become more engaged and knowledgeable, thoughtful conclusions are expected to emerge, leading to a better quality of public opinion. [18] Fishkin has found that if people think their voice actually matters in the question at hand, then they'll study the material, ask tough questions and think for themselves with about 70% changing their minds in the process. [12] Furthermore, it is also hoped that such poll can help increase deliberation among all members of the public. [21] This led Fishkin and Yale Law Professor Bruce Ackerman to propose a national holiday called Deliberation Day to allow voters to gather in large and small groups to discuss political issues. [22]

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.

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.

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.

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.

Public engagement or public participation is a term that has recently been used to describe "the practice of involving members of the public in the agenda-setting, decision-making, and policy-forming activities of organizations/institutions responsible for policy development." It is focused on the participatory actions of the public to aid in policy making based in their values.

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.

Psychology Beyond Borders (PBB) is an international non-profit organisation focused on the research and treatment of the mental and community health impacts of terrorism and natural disasters. It was created by Issues Deliberation Australia/America (IDA), an international non-partisan public policy and political psychology think tank, in 2005.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Dietram Scheufele</span> American academic

Dietram A. Scheufele is a German-American social scientist and the Taylor-Bascom Chair in the Department of Life Sciences Communication at the University of Wisconsin–Madison. He is also a Distinguished Research Fellow at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. Prior to joining UW, Scheufele was a tenured faculty member in the Department of Communication at Cornell University.

<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">Public consultation</span> Process to get public input

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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Gombojavyn Zandanshatar</span> Mongolian politician

Gombojav Zandanshatar is a Mongolian politician. He is a member of the Mongolian People's Party, and has served as Party General Secretary from 2012 to 2013.

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.

Deliberation Day is a proposed holiday promoting deliberative democracy. The proposal was suggested by American political scientists Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin and would supplement or replace Presidents' Day in the United States. On Deliberation Day, all registered voters would be invited to participate in public community discussions about the upcoming elections, and would be given financial compensation for their involvement in order to encourage the participation of those who are less interested in politics.

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).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">America in One Room</span> 2019 deliberative polling event; the largest representative sample in American history

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.

The Global Assembly is a global citizens' assembly consisting of one hundred persons from around the world chosen by sortition to discuss issues facing the world as a whole, starting with climate change. It is a joint initiative of several bodies including the Iswe Foundation, Danish Board of Technology, and the Centre for Deliberative Democracy and Global Governance at the University of Canberra and has multiple funders including the Scottish Government and the European Climate Foundation and is supported by the United Nations. On 30 October 2021, the Assembly produced the first statement that has any claim to democratically represent the voice of humanity in the form of an interim statement.

Mongolia's Law on Deliberative Polling is a law that codified the deliberative polling process into Mongolian law. It was ratified on February 9, 2017. It requires deliberative polling on potential amendments to the Mongolian Constitution before they are considered by parliament. It is the first ever instance of a country incorporating deliberative polling into its national law.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Fishkin, J.S.; Luskin, R.C.; Jowell, R. (2000). "Deliberative polling and public consultation". Parliamentary Affairs . 53 (4): 657–666. doi:10.1093/pa/53.4.657.
  2. ↑ "Online Deliberation Platform". Deliberative Democracy Lab - Stanford University. Retrieved 2023-09-15.
  3. ↑ "CDD: Deliberative Polling®: Executive Summary". Center for Deliberative Democracy. Archived from the original on 2015-02-10.
  4. ↑ Fishkin, James S. (2018). "Ch. 1". Democracy when the people are thinking: revitalizing our politics through public deliberation. Oxford: Oxford university press. ISBN   978-0-19-882029-1.
  5. ↑ Fishkin, James S.; Luskin, Robert C. (2005). "Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion" (PDF). Acta Politica. 40 (3): 285. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500121. S2CID   144393786 . Retrieved February 19, 2018.
  6. 1 2 Scheufele, Dietram A. "Modern Citizenship or Policy Dead End? Evaluating the need for public participation in science policy making, and why public meetings may not be the answer." Shorenstein Center Research Paper Series 2011.R-34, January 2011. (note: not peer-reviewed)
  7. ↑ Tsuruoka, Masahiro. "INTERVIEW: James Fishkin: Deliberative Polling should be used in key policy issues like energy". The Asahi Shimbun. Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 12 November 2012.
  8. 1 2 Gelauff, Lodewijk; Nikolenko, Liubov; Sakshuwong, Sukolsak; Fishkin, James; Goel, Ashish; Munagala, Kamesh; Siu, Alice (2023-06-08), "Achieving parity with human moderators", The Routledge Handbook of Collective Intelligence for Democracy and Governance (1 ed.), London: Routledge, pp. 202–221, doi: 10.4324/9781003215929-15 , ISBN   978-1-003-21592-9 , retrieved 2023-09-15
  9. ↑ Badger, Emily; Quealy, Kevin (2 October 2019). "These 526 Voters Represent All of America. And They Spent a Weekend Together". The New York Times .
  10. ↑ Fishkin, James; Siu, Alice; Diamond, Larry; Bradburn, Norman (November 2021). "Is Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization? Reflections on "America in One Room"". American Political Science Review. 115 (4): 1464–1481. doi: 10.1017/S0003055421000642 . ISSN   0003-0554.
  11. ↑ Fishkin, James; Diamond, Larry (August 21, 2023). "Can deliberation cure our divisions about democracy?". The Boston Globe. Retrieved 2023-09-11.
  12. 1 2 3 Klein, Joe (September 13, 2010). "Tough Issues". Time Magazine : 29. Archived from the original on September 4, 2010.
  13. ↑ Leonard, Mark. "China's new Intelligentsia", Prospect Magazine, Issue 144, 2008
  14. ↑ McGrath, Mike (2020). "Deliberative Polling and the Rise of Wind Power in Texas". National Civic Review. 109 (1): 34–38. doi:10.32543/naticivirevi.109.1.0034. ISSN   0027-9013.
  15. ↑ Galbraith, Kate; Price, Asher (2013-09-17). "Book Excerpt: How the Public Got Behind Texas Wind Power". The Texas Tribune . Retrieved 2023-07-06.
  16. ↑ Fishkin, James (2018-12-20). "Response to Critics: Toward the Reform of Actually Existing Democracies". The Good Society. 27 (1–2): 193. doi:10.5325/goodsociety.27.1-2.0190. ISSN   1089-0017.
  17. ↑ Fishkin, James (2018-12-20). "Response to Critics: Toward the Reform of Actually Existing Democracies". The Good Society. 27 (1–2): 196–200. doi:10.5325/goodsociety.27.1-2.0190. ISSN   1089-0017.
  18. 1 2 Merkle, D. M. (1996). "The polls - Review - The National Issues Convention Deliberative Poll". Public Opinion Quarterly. 60 (4): 588–619. doi:10.1086/297775.
  19. ↑ Binder, Andrew R.; Scheufele, Dietram A.; Brossard, Dominique (April 10, 2012). "Opinion: Misguided Science Policy?". The Scientist Magazine (Op-ed). Retrieved 2023-07-07.
  20. ↑ Admir, J. G. (1996). "The Hawthorne effet is a common artifact in social research". Public Perspective. 7: 14–16.
  21. ↑ Luskin, R. C.; Fishkin, J. S. (1998). "Deliberative polling, public opinion, and democracy: The case of the National Issues Convention". Working Paper, University of Texas at Austin.
  22. ↑ Ackerman, Bruce; Fishkin, James (January 1, 2004). "For a Smarter Public, Deliberation Day". The American Prospect . Archived from the original on 2011-08-10. Retrieved 2023-07-06.
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.