vision2020
Re: FW: another democratic innovation - Deliberative Polling
Dear Tom,
Thanks for the intriguing information! Wouldn't it be interesting if we in
Moscow could use this model or a subset through the 1912 Center to get
people more educated and involved in their community!?!
Keep those cards and letters coming!
All the best!
Linda
----- Original Message -----
From: Tom Trail <ttrail@moscow.com>
To: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Sent: Friday, July 07, 2000 7:34 PM
Subject: 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