Deliberative Polling Research Articles

Deliberation, Single-Peakedness, and the Possibility of Meaningful Democracy: Evidence from Deliberative Polls

Majority cycling and related social choice paradoxes are often thought to threaten the meaningfulness of democracy. Deliberation can protect against majority cycles—not by inducing unanimity, which is unrealistic, but by bringing preferences closer to single-peakedness. We present the first empirical test of this hypothesis, using data from Deliberative Polls. Comparing preferences before and after deliberation, we find increases in proximity to single-peakedness. The increases are greater for lower- versus higher-salience issues and for individuals who seem to have deliberated more versus less effectively. They are not merely a by-product of increased substantive agreement (which in fact does not generally increase). Our results are important, quite apart from their implications for majority cycling, because single-peakedness can be naturally interpreted in terms of an underlying issue dimension, which can both clarify the debate and allow a majority-winning alternative to be interpreted as a median choice and thus as an attractive “compromise.”

Working with China to Promote Democracy

China represents an uncomfortable thorn in U.S. efforts to promote democracy around the world. While some projects have been successful, a large gap exists between the increasing U.S. funding in China and its “limited impact.” Moreover, U.S. democracy promotion in China has contributed to strategic distrust between China and the United States; Beijing perceives it as a strategic move to destabilize the rise of China and sabotage the Communist Party's leadership. At the same time, China's growing power while maintaining one-party rule and rejecting democratic change generates fear and distrust among many Americans. The scholarship on U.S. democracy promotion is largely and understandably dominated by U.S. scholars with U.S. perspectives. Chinese officials’ and scholars’ responses and perspectives are, however, often overlooked, particularly by democracy-promotion professionals, and are largely omitted from literature on the subject. This paper attempts to understand how the complex and multilayered U.S. democracy-promotion program in China has contributed to this strategic distrust. It examines China's responses to U.S. democracy promotion and explains the confrontational dynamic between Washington and Beijing. The paper also explores whether and how Beijing and Washington can create mutual trust rather than suspicions. Some skeptics may consider this naive, but on historical and political grounds it is actually a realistic possibility

Deliberating across Deep Divides

Deeply divided societies would seem to be infertile ground for mass deliberation. ‘Enclave deliberation’, among people on the same side, may well occur. But people on opposing sides may not trust one another, they may not listen with an open mind, or they may regard the other side's arguments as insincere cover for sectional interests. Perhaps, though, we underestimate their deliberative capacities? This article examines a deliberative poll (DP) in the Omagh area of Northern Ireland, a society having only recently emerged from protracted violence, reflecting and reinforcing the deep divide between Catholics and Protestants. The topic – the future of the local schools – was one on which many of the issues were heavily impinged by the Catholic–Protestant divide. We examine the extent to which a representative sample, including both Catholics and Protestants, was able to deliberate constructively and how the experience changed their policy attitudes and their opinions of one another.

Using Deliberation in the Classroom: A Teaching Pedagogy to Enhance Student Knowledge, Opinion Formation, and Civic Engagement

This article presents the findings of a study concerning the use of deliberation as a tool for classroom instruction. Utilizing deliberative polling as the basis for this project, we wanted to determine whether this form of discourse will have an impact on student knowledge, opinions about a policy issue, and levels of engagement. The use of pre- and posttest surveys demonstrates that students who engaged in a deliberative dialogue were more likely to increase their knowledge, to change their opinions about the issue discussed, and to increase their levels of anticipated engagement. Students in a control group experienced no similar changes, suggesting that deliberation might be an effective tool for combating student apathy and disengagement.

Framing a Deliberation. Deliberative Democracy and the Challenge of Framing Processes

Among both scholars and practioners, the critical importance of framing processes in the realm of deliberative democracy has been neither formally acknowledged nor adequately studied so far. The purpose of this theoretical article is to craft and define the analytical concepts and methodological tools necessary to shed light on this complex relationship. After introducing the notion of ‘deliberative frame’, which is examined across two distinct framing processes – ‘primary’ and ‘derivative’ (or secondary) – this article presents ‘deliberative frame analysis’ (DFA) as a qualitative method which can uncover the ‘meta-frame’ and the specific issue framings (or the deliberative ‘frames’) within a deliberation. This is achieved by examining selected elements both of the organizational context and information materials, and will be illustrated by the example of a famous deliberative poll carried out at European level. Finally, the introduction of authentically competing frames (i.e. ‘counterframes’ and not merely counterarguments) into the deliberative setting, along with the structural possibility for ‘reframing’ in the course of the deliberation, is indicated as a substantive precondition for neutralizing the overall framing effects and thus avoiding a heavily biased deliberation outcome. The article therefore offers a more comprehensive understanding of framing processes as a key challenge for deliberative politics, particularly as regards the legitimacy claims of its various experiments and practices, which are increasingly common in most established democracies.

A license to produce? Farmer interpretations of the new food security agenda

Drawing on the findings of empirical research conducted in the South West of England, this paper explores how farmers make sense of re-emerging imperatives for ‘food security’ in UK policy and political discourse. The analysis presented is based on two types of empirical inquiry. First, an extensive survey of 1543 farmers, exploring the basic associations farmers make with the term ‘food security’. Second, a novel methodological experiment in ‘deliberative polling’ undertaken with a group of 33 farmers in the area of Mid Devon, where farmers were polled on issues relating to food security discourse before and after a process of group discussion. Participants in the study are revealed as generally very alert to the emerging contours of the wider food security debate. Most aligned themselves with the normative goal of increasing the productive capacity of UK land resources, and asserted this concern in relation to wider issues of sustainable land use. However the study also reveals key discrepancies between policy appeals to food security and the values and priorities of farmers, not least through participant appeals to greater national self-determination in food supplies. This is viewed as a pretext upon which patterns of economically and socially viable local farming might be re-invigorated.

Deliberative processes and attitudes toward sex offenders in Spain

Public opinion has been studied as an important influence in criminal policy and legislation. Different ways of measuring public preferences have been proposed. The aim of this study is to compare attitudes toward sex offenders when assessed through surveys and deliberative polls. An experimental design was used, with treatment and control groups and multiple observations. The results of the multivariate analyses show that the attitudes measured through deliberative polls are less punitive and more stable over time. The implications of this study for future research and the potential of deliberative polling in informing criminal policy are discussed.

The Effects of Deliberative Polling in an EU-wide Experiment: Five Mechanisms in Search of an Explanation

Deliberative Polls simulate public opinion in a given policy domain when members of the relevant mass public are better informed about the issues involved. This article reports on the results of a three-day Deliberative Poll, conducted before the June 2009 European Parliament elections, to evaluate the effects of deliberation on a representative sample of EU citizens. Findings show that, compared with a control group, deliberators changed their views significantly on immigration (becoming more liberal), climate change (becoming greener) and the EU itself (becoming more pro-European). Five different explanations of why deliberation appears to work are tested: sampling bias, increased political knowledge, discussion quality, small group social conformity pressure and the influence of other Deliberative Poll actors, but none is satisfactory.

Is the Poor Quality of Chinese Civic Awareness Preventing Democracy in China? A Case Study of Zeguo Township

(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.) A prevailing view in China is that the country cannot democratize because of the poor quality of the populace with respect to quality, or civic awareness. This viewpoint lacks empirical support in relevant case studies and databases. This article focuses on a case study conducted using the polling process in Zeguo Township, Zhejiang Province, to determine whether citizen quality influences the effectiveness of local action. We find that during the group deliberation, factors such as participants' education, age, and career do not bear significantly on the success of deliberation. Democratic deliberation can improve the civic knowledge of the public, public spiritedness, and civic participation, all of which facilitate the effectiveness of deliberation and the development of trust in the government. KEYWORDS: democracy in East Asia, China, polling, citizen quality. THE SUBJECT OF CHINESE DEMOCRATIZATION OFTEN INSPIRES A DUBIOUS chorus of skepticism. One popular view is the quality discourse, which asserts, (1) Common people receive low education and have little cultural knowledge, hence are unable to grasp the essence of political affairs and are also unable to manage public affairs. (2) Common people lack the spirit of toleration and compromise, and cannot objectively process different opinions. Divergent opinions on a same issue often escalate into disputes, failing to form a public choice of rationality. (Lai 2001) These conditions are said to prevent China from achieving democratization without descending into chaos (Cai 2005). In recent years, this outlook has undergone subtle adjustments, switching from population quality discourse to Chinese democratization model discourse. The contention now is that democracy lacks a universal standard and instead is determined by the conditions of the region. By this notion, China cannot implement Westernized democracy (Fang 2009). Other democratization theorists express similar concerns.As one study has put it, Some contend that ordinary citizens cannot deal with complex policy issues, others that their deliberations will be distorted by gender or class inequalities, and yet others that they will be ineluctably polarizing (Fishkin et al. 2010, 435). Can ordinary citizens engage in activities? Are they ready to put the public interest first in dealing with public affairs? On the grassroots level, activities in China have already been in motion. For instance, mass elections of village leaders are now required under election law, and in certain districts citizens are given the opportunity to criticize public policy. Many towns inWenling County of Zhejiang Province practice what is called democratic heart-to-heart (kentan), where citizens gather to discuss local public issues. This very special case has already drawn widespread interest and scrutiny. Within Wenling County, different towns have adopted various strategies of deliberation. A fairly common strategy involves the discussion of the public budget by a sample of citizens. But in Zeguo Township, the incorporation of the polling method stands apart from the rest. James Fishkin et al. have already drawn important conclusions concerning its process and effectiveness (2010, 439-446). In 2005 Fishkin and his team helped the local officials of Zeguo conduct deliberation, which they called deliberative polling. Through a series of questionnaires, he surveyed local villagers' attitudes on different subjects, assembling a valuable data set.Anumber of scholars have used this data set in their empirical analyses (Fishkin et al. 2010). As Fishkin and colleagues (2010) concluded, the process of polling could significantly change the participants' attitudes and result in legitimate consensus. …

The Two Sides of the Representative Coin

In Federalist 10 James Madison drew a functional distinction between “parties” (advocates for factional interests) and “judgment” (decision-making for the public good) and warned of the corrupting effect of combining both functions in a “single body of men.” This paper argues that one way of overcoming “Madisonian corruption” would be by restricting political parties to an advocacy role, reserving the judgment function to an allotted (randomly-selected) microcosm of the whole citizenry, who would determine the outcome of parliamentary debates by secret ballot—a division of labour suggested by James Fishkin’s experiments in deliberative polling. The paper then defends this radical constitutional proposal against Bernard Manin’s (1997) claim that an allotted microcosm could not possibly fulfil the “consent” requirement of Natural Right theory. Not only does the proposal challenge Manin’s thesis, but a 28th Amendment implementing it would finally reconcile the competing visions that have bedevilled representative democracy since the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Evaluating the Short- and Long-term Effects of a Modified Deliberative Poll on Idahoans’ Attitudes and Civic Engagement Related to Energy Options

Deliberative polling engages citizens in a process of dialog, exposure to information, and interaction with experts, with the goal of developing more informed, stable attitudes and promoting civic engagement. There have been relatively few assessments of deliberative polling’s short-term effects and even fewer on its long-term effects. Moreover, most assessments examine aggregate changes in attitudes, although theory would suggest that changes might be idiosyncratic, especially in situations where balanced information is provided. This study examines the effects of a one-day modified deliberative poll regarding energy options for the state of Idaho. Using quantitative data from pre-tests, an immediate post-test (n=61), and a follow-up post-test eight months later (n=44), as well as qualitative data from interviews, this study explored preferences for five energy options and how participation affected civic engagement. We also report on participants’ assessments of the deliberative poll itself. Results show few significant changes in aggregate attitudes, with the exception that preference for nuclear power declined after the deliberative poll event. However, examining within-subjects data revealed that up to approximately 30% of participants exhibited substantive changes in their preferences, both immediately after the event and several months later. The extent of changes between the post-test and delayed post-test reinforces that attitudes are affected by individuals’ life circumstances, and suggests participation did not lead to highly enduring attitude changes. There was little evidence that participation led to increased civic engagement, either through communicating what was learned with others or through becoming more politically active

The Deliberative Poll as a Method for Generating Informed Opinion on Immigration

The articles in this collection broadly address the social psychology of immigration and explore ways to improve relationships between natives and nonnatives in the United States. In this comment, we propose the Deliberative Poll as an additional tool for the study of opinion on immigration and for improving relationships among the groups.

DELIBERATION'S LEGITIMATION CRISIS: REPLY TO GLEASON

ABSTRACT Laurel Gleason contends that deliberative polling constrains the autonomy of participants and substitutes the ideas and agendas of “experts” for those of the deliberators. However, the format and informational constraints faced by participants in deliberative forums are no worse, and are in many ways better, than those faced by ordinary citizens. The real problem with deliberative polls is that if they were to become popular, it would be tempting for interest groups and partisan elites to create polls in which the constraints and briefing materials subtly tilted the participants in a desired direction. Public criticism of biased deliberative polls would, in turn, invite biased criticism of unbiased polls. In short, “policing” the quality of deliberative polls could recreate the very pathologies of real-world democratic discourse that the polls are designed to rectify. However, this problem is not insurmountable, because the participants themselves can police the proceedings by questioning the veracity and balance of the briefing materials.

REVISITING “THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE”: AN EVALUATION OF THE CLAIMS AND CONSEQUENCES OF DELIBERATIVE POLLING

ABSTRACT Political scientist James Fishkin has devised “deliberative polling” as a means to better informed, more autonomous, and more reflective participant opinion. After a deliberative poll, this improved form of public opinion can be disseminated to the general public and to policy makers so as to influence public opinion (as it is normally construed) and public policy. Close examination of the results of deliberative polling, however, suggests no evidence of a normatively desirable gain in informed, autonomous, or considered opinion—as opposed to minor gains in participants' general political knowledge and in ideological constraint, which is likely attributable to the pre-packaged “expert” views set forth in the briefing materials provided to the participants.

WHY DELIBERATIVE POLLING? REPLY TO GLEASON

ABSTRACT Contrary to Laurel Gleason's assertions, Deliberative Polling among random samples is not a process that is dominated by “experts” or by certain categories of deliberator; it produces genuine gains among the participants in knowledge of information that has been verified as true and relevant; it does not cause ideological polarization; and it is not intended as a substitute for, rather than a supplement to, deliberation on the part of the general public.

Language policy mistakes in Singapore: Governance, expertise and the deliberation of language ideologies

An admission of a language policy mistake from the Singapore government is a rare occurrence. In recent years, there have been two such admissions. This paper discusses these policy mistakes, and focuses on the contributions that language experts might be able to make to the process of policy construction. It is argued that language experts should not be restricted in their ability to contribute to the process of policy formulation, particularly if deeply entrenched ideologies about language are to be subjected to careful scrutiny. The paper concludes by considering deliberative polls, which provide one practical design where experts and non‐experts can engage in an informed discussion about specific policy recommendations.

A Community Deliberative Polling Event: The Economic Impact of Walmart

This article presents the results of a deliberative poll in which members from the local community and college students from SUNY Cortland discussed the economic impact of Walmart on a small town. We review the literature concerning deliberative polling and describe the process of the deliberative polling event. Our examination of the data focuses on net changes in the participants’ opinions and gross changes in the participants’ opinions. We discuss the trends and implications of the opinion shifts and outline future research. The results illustrate that the process of deliberation affects changes in attitude items at both the individual and group level.

What is an Opinion Anyway?

Traditional polls assume that opinions on any political or social issue can be collected simply by asking straightforward questions and recording the answers. Wrong. Many people have not carefully sifted the available information or formed a firm opinion prior to interview. Nevertheless a traditional poll counts all responses as having equal validity, however and whenever they are formed. Qualitative research, although allowing more open discussion, nevertheless exerts the same pressure on respondents to have a view. Group dynamics and the discussion guide and leader also combine to steer the group towards consensus. If only people were made to pay attention to the facts and substantive issues, as in a deliberative poll, then we would know what ‘informed’ public opinion would think. Trouble is, as the government has found, the answers obtained could be said to be critically dependent on the information the researchers choose to provide to respondents. This paper investigates the potential for large-scale e-Delphi polling methods, simply giving large representative samples of voters simple questions on broad topic areas to consider. Via an iterative process, the job of researcher is then to observe what views people hold and give those views back to respondents to rate and comment on. The method allows people to think about the broad subject area, express a view in their own time, if they have one, and/or respond to the views of others. We can observe which thoughts are popular and which have an infectious capability. Critically, the job of the researcher is not to ask – but to listen.

Giving the People a Voice? Experiments with consultative authoritarian institutions in China

In the last decade Chinese consultative authoritarianism has been renewed through many political and administrative innovations and tools. Authoritarian rule in China is now permeated by a wide variety of consultative and deliberative practices. These practices stabilize and strengthen authoritarian rule, leading to deliberative authoritarianism, an advanced form of consultative authoritarianism. This paper discusses two experiments—deliberative polling at Zeguo, Zhejiang, and a township election in Ya'an, Sichuan. Through these two cases we examine the direction which the development of consultative authoritarianism is presently taking, and the potentials and limitations of such input mechanisms in an authoritarian setting.

Deliberative Democracy and the Countermajoritarian Difficulty: Considering Constitutional Juries

The literature on the democratic legitimacy of judicial review and also on institutionalizing deliberative democracy neglects the possibility of employing juries rather than judges to determine bill-of-rights matters. This neglect is unfortunate, for there are findings emerging especially from deliberative polling that support the feasibility of such juries. Such feasibility would raise a new countermajoritarian concern with judicial review. The argument supporting this new concern also casts fresh light on the traditional countermajoritarian concern.