James Fishkin: Deliberative Democracy

James Fishkin chairs the communication department at Stanford University and directs the Center for Deliberative Democracy.

From "The Nation in a Room," a 2006 Boston Review article by Fishkin:

Democracy is rule by the people. That’s what democrats celebrate and what democracy’s critics condemn. The critics, around since Plato, have an important argument. The people, they say, are neither sufficiently informed nor sufficiently reflective to rule. And because the people are not fit to rule, they need to be governed by an elite whose members—like Plato’s philosopher-kings—think harder and know better.

The American founders were troubled by this problem and proposed an answer to it. Their solution — defined by James Madison — was to make deliberation a key part of the design of the American democratic republic. The idea was “to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens”—to filter public opinion through representatives who would deliberate about public issues. ...

Done well, polls can accurately reflect the state of opinion about a given topic. But whether the responses registered in polls reflect considered judgments depends not on the techniques of polling but on the state of democratic practice. Gallup, among others, showed that informal, unofficial changes in democratic practice can influence the way public opinion shapes our politics. Might there be some way, in a modern context, to combine Madison’s aspiration and Gallup’s? The project that I call “Deliberative Polling” represents a promising answer to this question.

From "Town Halls by Invitation," Fishkin's recent NYT oped on the health care town halls:

These deliberative polls may, on the surface, look a lot like the current town halls — a lawmaker and constituents sharing their positions and asking each other questions. But a lot of hard work goes on behind the scenes. First, a survey identifies the range of attitudes and demographics in the district, before inviting a randomly selected, representative sample of constituents to attend. A random sample cannot be captured by people with intense interests volunteering themselves. Second, to facilitate discussion, participants are sent balanced briefing materials about the issues to be discussed ahead of time.

When they first arrive at the deliberative poll, attendees answer a confidential questionnaire assessing their positions, before being divided up for small-group discussions. This is key: in the current town hall format, shrill voices can easily silence the rest. But during a deliberative poll, trained moderators make sure that every voice is heard and that the group carefully and thoughtfully narrows in on its most pertinent and pressing policy questions. ...

At the end of the day, participants are polled again. Our research at the Center for Deliberative Democracy shows that participants always become better informed and that, about two-thirds of the time, they change their opinions significantly.

Here is a one-page diagram of the deliberative polling method (pdf). Fishkin's new book is When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. He blogs at SFGate.

(See also Sandy Heierbacher on "Upgrading the Way We Do Politics.")