vision2020
Re: FW: another democratic innovation - Deliberative Polling
Dear Visionaries:
My sister, Marilyn, works for Washington State Extension in Spokane. She
forwarded me this
e mail concerning Deliberative Polling. Thought you might be interested.
Tom Trail
>>>
>>>> ----------
>>>> From: Tom Atlee[SMTP:cii@igc.org]
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 28, 2000 3:37 PM
>>>> To: cii@igc.org
>>>> Subject: another democratic innovation - Deliberative Polling
>>>>
>>>> Dear friends:
>>>>
>>>> I've been talking for several years about a democratic innovation I call
>>>> "Citizen Consensus Councils" -- of which Jim Rough's Wisdom Councils and
>>>> the Danish citizen technology panels ("consensus conferences") are primary
>>>> examples. These are discussed in detail on
>>>> http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-citizenCC.html .
>>>>
>>>> A few days ago I stumbled on another fascinating democratic innovation --
>>>> Deliberative Polling -- that bears a striking resemblance to these. I'm
>>>> still digesting its implications, but I wanted to get info about it out to
>>>> you ASAP. Here are a description and some links.
>>>>
>>>> _ _ _ _ _
>>>>
>>>> http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/delpol/bluebook/summary.html
>>>> http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/delpol/bluebook/execsum.html
>>>>
>>>> DELIBERATIVE POLLING®
>>>> Executive Summary
>>>>
>>>> The Problem:
>>>>
>>>> Citizens are often uninformed about key public issues. Conventional polls
>>>> represent the
>>>> public's surface impressions of sound bites and headlines. The public,
>>>> subject to what
>>>> social scientists have called "rational ignorance" has little reason to
>>>> confront trade-offs or
>>>> invest time and effort in acquiring information.
>>>>
>>>> The Process:
>>>>
>>>> Deliberative Polling® is an attempt to use television and public opinion
>>>> research in a new
>>>> and constructive way. A random, representative sample is first polled on
>>>> the issues. After
>>>> this baseline poll, members of the sample are invited to gather at a
>>>> single
>>>> place to discuss
>>>> the issues. Carefully balanced briefing materials are sent to the
>>>> participants and are also
>>>> made publicly available. The participants engage in dialogue with
>>>> competing
>>>> experts and
>>>> political leaders based on questions they develop in small group
>>>> discussions with trained
>>>> moderators. Parts of the weekend events are broadcast on television,
>>>> either
>>>> live or in taped
>>>> and edited form. After the weekend deliberations, the sample is asked the
>>>> same questions
>>>> again. The resulting changes in opinion represent the conclusions the
>>>> public would reach,
>>>> if people had a good opportunity to become more informed and more engaged
>>>> by the
>>>> issues.
>>>>
>>>> The Center for Deliberative Polling is described on
>>>> http://www.la.utexas.edu/research/delpol/cdpindex.html
>>>>
>>>> Deliberative Polling was created by James S. Fishkin, a professor of
>>>> government at the University of Texas. The fascinating and accessible
>>>> first chapter of his 1997 book "The Voice of the People: Public Opinion
>>>> and Democracy" can be found online at
>>>> http://www.yale.edu/yup/books/fishkinchap1.html . Many of Fishkin's
>>>> excellent arguments would serve the cause of citizen consensus councils,
>>>> as
>>>> well.
>>>>
>>>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>>>
>>>> Deliberative Polling activities bear a striking resemblance to the Danish
>>>> citizen technology panels, in which selected ordinary citizens study a
>>>> public issue in depth, including questioning experts on that issue --
>>>> although in the Danish model, the citizens are then facilitated to a
>>>> consensus statement which they release to the government and the media.
>>>> What makes Deliberative Polling different from citizen consensus councils
>>>> is, of course, that there is no effort to help the citizens involved reach
>>>> a consensus about what to do. Deliberative Polling is satisfied that
>>>> majority opinion regarding existing options has shifted or been
>>>> strengthened by the collective study and discussion. Deliberative Polling
>>>> shows what the majority of "The People" want when they are truly informed
>>>> about an issue, which is a giant step ahead of what's usual in our
>>>> political culture.
>>>>
>>>> But consensus process doesn't stop there. It seeks to engender that
>>>> deeper
>>>> level of insight available only when diverse people seek shared
>>>> understanding or common ground. Consensus process among diverse people --
>>>> if it done well (especially if it is enhanced by the creative power of
>>>> dynamic facilitation
>>>> http://www.co-intelligence.org/P-dynamicfacilitation.html) -- has the
>>>> power
>>>> to generate breakthrough insights and options that ordinary conversation
>>>> and individual reflection simply can't produce.
>>>>
>>>> While deliberative polling demonstrates the power of broad-spectrum
>>>> education about an issue, it doesn't necessarily free people from the
>>>> existing limited menu of options being advocated in the debate on that
>>>> issue. The fact that the number of options is limited is DIRECTLY related
>>>> to the fact that our political culture is grounded in DEBATE, rather than
>>>> true, exploratory DIALOGUE in search of common understanding and creative
>>>> possibilities.
>>>>
>>>> This situation illustrates the limitations of adversarial, majoritarian
>>>> democracy. Majoritarianism starts with one or more proposals or
>>>> candidates
>>>> and lets the majority of those involved decide WHICH of those proposals or
>>>> candidates is going to be instituted. The process of decision involves
>>>> DEBATE and COMPROMISE. Debate, done well, clarifies the pros and cons of
>>>> existing issues and options. It does not reveal new issues or options.
>>>> And compromise too often involves ignoring legitimate pros and cons -- and
>>>> sometimes even ignoring the basic issues themselves -- in search of
>>>> trade-offs that will result in an agreement.
>>>>
>>>> What's too often missing in majoritarianism is CREATIVITY. Instead of
>>>> "WHICH of these options is best?", we should be asking "WHAT options can
>>>> we
>>>> come up with that will best satisfy all the requirements of this
>>>> situation?" THAT question requires collaborative inquiry, not competitive
>>>> advocacy. It is a total shift in awareness and approach.
>>>>
>>>> So I don't view Deliberative Polling as a replacement for citizen
>>>> consensus
>>>> councils. But neither do I think of it as inferior. Rather I am
>>>> interested in possible synergies between them. Here's one possibility:
>>>>
>>>> Citizen consensus councils usually involve only one or two dozen
>>>> participants, selected to embody the diversity of the larger population
>>>> from which they were chosen. It is not easy to run consensus process on
>>>> large numbers of people, but this leads some people to question the
>>>> validity of the findings of such small councils. Deliberative Polling
>>>> efforts, in contrast, have involved between 200 and 466 participants,
>>>> chosen for their validity as random polling samples. I wonder what would
>>>> happen if
>>>>
>>>> 1) An initial poll about some public issue -- putting limits on genetic
>>>> engineering, for example -- were done on 500 people.
>>>>
>>>> 2) A citizen consensus council was done on that issue (probably a hybrid
>>>> of Danish style and wisdom council).
>>>>
>>>> 3) The 500 people in (1) were divided into two groups for the
>>>> deliberative
>>>> stage of the Deliberative Polling process:
>>>> a) One group of 250 people would study conventional
>>>> materials and experts.
>>>> b) The other group of 250 people would study both the
>>>> conventional materials and experts AND the citizen
>>>> consensus council's findings -- and talk with the
>>>> members of the citizen consensus council.
>>>>
>>>> 4) All 500 people were re-polled on the issue, and the results of the two
>>>> groups compared.
>>>>
>>>> It would be interesting to see how the citizen consensus council results
>>>> impacted the views of the public in this polling experiment. We could
>>>> expect the results of that council to have a very different flavor from
>>>> the
>>>> mainstream debate on the subject. In the final poll of all 500 people,
>>>> you'd probably need an "other" category when you asked them about options,
>>>> because the people who had been exposed to the citizen consensus council
>>>> would most likely favor options that didn't even exist when the survey was
>>>> first designed! The results would be fascinating evidence of the power of
>>>> citizen consensus councils.
>>>>
>>>> I'd love to see a TV program made from the tapes of these various
>>>> discussions, and from interviews with the participants. It would show a
>>>> startlingly different form of democracy than we're used to -- one filled
>>>> with positive possibilities and creative empowerment.
>>>>
>>>> If we wanted to REALLY show the limits of majoritarianism, we could have a
>>>> third group who was only given information on the extreme "two sides" of
>>>> the issue, and was only allowed to watch a debate between advocates of
>>>> those two sides, rather than interviewing a full spectrum of experts. I
>>>> would expect the changes of opinion to be least dramatic among this group
>>>> of citizens.
>>>>
>>>> How could such an experiment be funded? What a difference it could make!
>>>>
>>>> Just thinking....
>>>>
>>>> Coheartedly,
>>>>
>>>> Tom
>>>>
>>>> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>>>>
>>>> Tom Atlee * The Co-Intelligence Institute * Eugene, OR
>>>> http://www.co-intelligence.org
>>>> http://www.co-intelligence.org/CIPol_Index.html
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>Dr. Tom Trail
>>International Trails
>>1375 Mt. View Rd.
>>Moscow, Id. 83843
>>Tel: (208) 882-6077
>>Fax: (208) 882-0896
>>e mail ttrail@moscow.com
>>
>>
>>
>
Dr. Tom Trail
International Trails
1375 Mt. View Rd.
Moscow, Id. 83843
Tel: (208) 882-6077
Fax: (208) 882-0896
e mail ttrail@moscow.com
Back to TOC