vision2020
Re: FW: another democratic innovation - Deliberative Polling
Other good resources for learning more about deliberative
democracy include:
(1) Daniel Yankelovich's 1991 classic book "Coming to Public
Judgment: Making Democracy Work in a Complex World"
[Syracuse University Press, New York]
(2) The Public Agenda Foundation http://www.publicagenda.org
[see public engagement programs and bookstore sections]
(3) The Charles F. Kettering Foundation http://www.kettering.org
[see public choice programs and publications sections]
Philip Cook
Date forwarded: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 13:07:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Linda Pall" <lpall@moscow.com>
To: "Tom Trail" <ttrail@moscow.com>
Copies to: <vision2020@moscow.com>
Subject: Re: FW: another democratic innovation - Deliberative Polling
Date sent: Thu, 13 Jul 2000 12:59:19 -0700
Forwarded by: vision2020@moscow.com
> 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