Deliberative polls
The Center for Deliberative Polling
Deliberative polling, closely associated with the work of James S. Fishkin, was developed as a remedy to the usual problems of conventional consultative polling: an ill-informed, poorly chosen, sample public that provides knee-jerk, ill-considered views. The deliberative poll, on the other hand, entails a large random interview sample, and eventual participation in a weekend face-to-face discussion group, buttressed by a background reading package of materials certified as impartial and balanced by a third party. The discussion phase includes both deliberation and interviews of experts and public officials. Surveys conducted both before and after the deliberation process allows for documentation and measurement of the nature and degree of opinion change. Research shows that such experiences cause significant change in participants’ views. They thereby provide government with the best insight into the public’s informed and considered opinion, were everyone provided the same time and information. This method is especially useful when the public is likely to have little information on the issue or when a policy choice depends on trade-offs between competing goods.
Examples:
Australian Deliberative Poll on Aboriginal Reconciliation, 2001
U.S. National Issues Convention, 1996
Readings:
Luskin, Robert C., et al. "Considered opinions: Deliberative polling in Britain," British Journal of Political Science, 32(3) July 2002, 455-87
The authors conduct an extensive study on the world’s first Deliberative Poll, conducted in April of 1994. The event was thoroughly documented. The authors use that documentation to evaluate the deliberative poll’s value as conveyer of information and stimulant to opinion change. They find first substantial achievement on both courts. Furthermore, they observe that the same broad pattern can be observed in the analysis of every other deliberative poll since. There is always considerable gross change on almost all the attitude items and considerable net change on most. And the participants always acquire significantly more information. They do consider other potential causes for these effects, aside of deliberation, such as the pull of group psychology or the role of unusually persuasive speakers. However they find in all cases that such alternative explanations are not supported by the evidence.
Hansen, Kasper M., and Vibeke Normann Andersen, "Deliberative democracy and the deliberative poll on the Euro," Scandinavian Political Studies, 27(3) 2004, 261-86
The authors provide an examination and analysis of the deliberative poll, with particular emphasis on the Danish National Deliberative Poll on the country’s adoption of the Euro. This event involved the assembly of 364 representative Danish Citizens to debate the merits of the options, in a non-binding context – to maintain accountability to the general public. This context provides them the opportunity to test some of the claims for deliberative democracy. While they do observe occasions of self-interest and dominance tainting the experience, for the most part the results confirm deliberative democracy theory. They reveal a process characterized by considerable changes in opinion, increased knowledge among the participants, an improved ability to form a reasoned opinion and enhanced mutual understanding among participants. (The DP accepted the Euro, the eventual referendum rejected it).
Fishkin, James S., et al. "Deliberative polling and public consultation," Parliamentary Affairs, 53(4) October 2000, 657-66
The authors outline deliberative polling as a remedy to the usual problems of conventional consultative polling: an ill-informed – poorly chosen sample – public provides knee-jerk, ill-considered views. The deliberative poll entails a large random interview sample, and later participation in a weekend face-to-face discussion group, buttressed by a background reading package of materials certified as impartial and balanced by a third party. The discussion phase includes both deliberation and interviews of experts. Research shows that such experiences cause significant change in participants’ views. They also, the authors argue, provide government the best insight into the public’s informed and considered opinion. This method is especially useful when the public is likely to have little information on the issue or when a policy choice depends on trade-offs between competing goods.
IPAC Events
