Deliberative Polling®: Toward a Better-Informed Democracy
Center for Deliberative Democracy
Professor James S. Fishkin, Director
Stanford University
Table of Contents
Opinions on Deliberative Polling®
Telephone, Fax and E-Mail Contacts
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 or coming to a considered judgment.
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 targeted issues. After this baseline poll, members of the sample are invited to gather at a single place for a weekend in order 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 deliberations, the sample is again asked the original questions. The resulting changes in opinion represent the conclusions the public would reach, if people had opportunity to become more informed and more engaged by the issues.
History
Professor James Fishkin of Stanford University originated the concept of Deliberative Polling® in 1988. He has served as either Director or Academic Advisor for all of the Deliberative Polling® events conducted thus far. Previously he was the Director of the Center for Deliberative Polling® at the University of Texas at Austin. The Austin Center was moved to Stanford on Sept 1. 2003 and will continue under the new name Center for Deliberative Democracy. The Center will focus on research and application of Deliberative Polling®.
Deliberative Polling is a registered trademark and fees from the trademark go to the Center to support research. The Center for Deliberative Democracy has received generous support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation and from Stanford University.
Professor Robert C. Luskin of the Department of Government at the University of Texas in Austin is a Senior Fellow at the Center in Stanford. He is a recognized expert on public opinion and on research methodology.
The Center's Senior Advisors are Dr. Charls E. Walker and Dan Werner. Dr. Walker is a former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury. Dan Werner is President of MacNeil/Lehrer Productions and was Co-executive Producer of the National Issues Convention broadcasts.
Deliberative Polling® experiments have been conducted over twenty two times in the U.S. and abroad.
- There have been five national Deliberative Polls in Britain conducted by the television network Channel Four.
- Two national Deliberative Polls have been conducted in Australia, the first before the November 1999 referendum on Australia's possibly changing from a monarchy to a republic and the second, on reconciliation with the Aboriginals in February 2001. These events, broadcast on national television were a collaboration with Issues Deliberation Australia, involving national random samples of Australians brought to Canberra for three days of discussions in dialogue with experts and key political leaders.
- In August, 2000, we collaborated with the Danish publication Monday Morning and scholars at the University of Southern Denmark in Odense to mount a national Deliberative Poll before the Danish national referendum on the Euro. The weekend's proceedings were televised at length by Danish Broadcasting.
- In the U.S. there have been two events at the national level as well as ten local versions. The National Issues Convention, a collaboration of the University of Texas, PBS, MacNeil/Lehrer Productions and the National Opinion Research Center at the University of Chicago, was broadcast from Austin in January 1996. In January of 2003, the first online Deliberative Poll culminated soon after a face-to-face Deliberative Poll in Philadelphia with a national random sample of 340 participants that deliberated with the same briefing materials and took the same questionnaire.
- Eight regulated public utilities have conducted Deliberative Polls in their service territories in cooperation with the Public Utility Commission of the State of Texas--Central Power and Light (Corpus Christi), West Texas Utilities (Abilene) and South West Electric Power (Shreveport, La.), El Paso Electric (El Paso, TX), Houston Lighting and Power (Houston), Entergy (Beaumont, TX) Southwestern Public Service (Amarillo) and Texas Utilities (Dallas). The success of those polls led the PUC to require that the public be consulted on public utility policies after it has had an opportunity to become informed on the issues. In November 1999, the Nike Foundation and Oregon Public Broadcasting conducted a Deliberative Polling® process on education issues with students drawn, system-wide, from the Portland public school system. In March 2002, a local Deliberative Polling® experiment was held at Yale with the fifteen towns in the New Haven metropolitan area on regional economic cooperation between the city and suburbs.
Results
Each experiment conducted thus far has gathered a highly representative sample together at a single place. Each time, there were dramatic, statistically significant changes in views. The result is a poll with a human face. The process has the statistical representativeness of a scientific sample but it also has the concreteness and immediacy of a focus group or a discussion group. Taped and edited accounts of the small group discussions provide an opportunity for the public to reframe the issues in terms that connect with ordinary people.
The weekend samples have typically ranged in size from approximately 200 in the utility polls to a high of 466 at the 1996 National Issues Convention. The process provides the data to evaluate both the representativeness of each microcosm and the statistical significance of the changes in opinion. A very partial listing of significant changes is detailed in Tab 2.
Applications
Deliberative Polling® is especially suitable for issues where the public may have little knowledge or information, or where the public may have failed to confront the trade-offs applying to public policy. It is a social science experiment and a form of public education in the broadest sense.
Deliberative Polling®, 1994-2000:
How Participants Change (Selected Results)
The National Issues Convention
January 1996, Austin, Texas
|
|
Before Deliberation % |
After Deliberation % |
Difference % |
| In Favor Of: | |||
| "A tax reduction for savings" | 66 | 83 | +17 |
| "Flat Tax" | 44 | 30 | -14 |
| "Education and Training" (agree that we are now spending "too little") | 72 | 86 | +14 |
| "Foreign aid" (agree that current level is "about right") | 26 | 41 | +15 |
|
"Safety net for welfare and health care" should be turned over to the states "to decide how much to give" |
50 | 63 | +13 |
| "Make divorce harder to get" (as a way of strengthening the family) | 36 | 57 | +21 |
| "Military cooperation with other nations to address trouble spots in the world" (agree strongly that U.S. should continue) | 21 | 38 | +17 |
| "Biggest problem facing the American family" is "economic pressure" | 36 | 51 | +15 |
| "Biggest problem facing the American family" is "breakdown of traditional values" | 58 | 48 | -10 |
Deliberative Polling® on Crime 1994 (Britain)
|
|
Before Deliberation % |
After Deliberation % |
Difference % |
| Agree That: | |||
|
"Sending more offenders to prison" is "an effective way of fighting crime" |
57 | 38 | -19 |
| "The rules in court should be LESS on the side of the accused" | 42 | 52 | +10 |
| "Suspects should have the right to remain silent under police questioning" | 36 | 50 | +14 |
| Disagree That: | |||
| "The police should sometimes be able to 'bend the rules' to get a conviction (strongly disagree) | 37 | 46 | + 9 |
| "First time burglar, aged 16" should be sent to an ordinary prison (strongly against) | 33 | 50 | +17 |
British Deliberative Polling® on Europe 1995 (Britain)
|
|
Before Deliberation % |
After Deliberation % |
Difference % |
| Agree That: | |||
| Britain is a lot better off in the EU than out of it | 45 | 60 | +15 |
| Closer links with EU would make Britain stronger economically | 51 | 67 | +16 |
| If we left EU Britain would lose its best chance of real progress | 40 | 53 | +13 |
| With single currency, Britain would lose control of its own economic policy | 62 | 50 | -12 |
British Deliberative Polling® on the Monarchy
|
|
Before Deliberation % |
After Deliberation % |
Difference % |
| Agree That: | |||
| "The Monarchy makes me proud to be British" | 48 | 59 | +11 |
| "The Monarchy's role in uniting people from throughout Britain" is "very important" | 32 | 41 | + 9 |
| "The Monarchy should remain as it is" | 51 | 39 | -12 |
| "The Monarchy should be reformed" | 34 | 50 | +16 |
| The "Monarch should not stay head of the Church of England" | 26 | 56 | +30 |
British Deliberative Polling® on the General Election
|
|
Before Deliberation % |
After Deliberation % |
Difference % |
| Voting Intention: | |||
| Conservative | 26 | 19 | -7 |
| Labour | 47 | 39 | -8 |
| Liberal Democrat | 11 | 33 | +22 |
| Agree that: | |||
| "Government should do more to unite fully with European Union" | 36 | 49 | +13% |
| "Unless Britain keeps its own currency, it will lose too much control over its own economic policy" | 69 | 48 | -19 |
Electric Utility Deliberative Polling® Conducted for CPL (Central Power and Light), WTU (West Texas Utilities) and SWEPCO (South West Electric Power)
|
|
Before Deliberation % |
After Deliberation % |
Difference % |
| Option to pursue first (to provide additional electric power to service territory): | |||
| Renewable energy (CPL) | 67 | 16 | -51 |
| Renewable energy (WTU) | 71 | 35 | -36 |
| Renewable energy (SWEPCO) | 67 | 28 | -39 |
| Invest in conservation(CPL) | 11 | 46 | +35 |
| Invest in conservation (WTU) | 7 | 31 | +24 |
| Invest in conservation(SWEPCO) | 16 | 50 | +34 |
| Build fossil fuel plant (CPL) | 11 | 29 | +18 |
| Buy and transport power (WTU) | 10 | 18 | + 8 |
| % of customers who were willing to pay at least $1 more on their monthly bill for renewable energy | |||
| CPL | 58 | 81 | +23 |
| WTU | 56 | 90 | +34 |
| SWEPCO | 52 | 84 | +32 |
Australia Deliberates, October 1999
A nationally representative random sample of 347 Australian voters were assembled over the weekend of October 22-24, 1999 at Old Parliament House in Canberra to discuss the issues involved in the referendum in Australia's first ever Deliberative Poll.
The event was organized by Issues Deliberation Australia, in collaboration with the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University, and in consultation with the Centers for Deliberative Polling and Australian Studies at the University of Texas. It was broadcast by ABC (the Australian Broadcasting Corp) and by the "Sixty Minutes" program on the Nine Network. In addition, The Australian newspaper was a partner in the event.
Participants attending the Australia Deliberates were first interviewed in early September, about six weeks prior to being invited to attend the deliberations. They were then polled at the end of the weekend, following wide-ranging discussions and questioning of experts from all sides of the debate.
The Main Results
When Australians had the opportunity to discuss intensely the referendum on the republic, opinion shifted dramatically.
- there was a 20 percentage point increase in 'yes' voters, from 53 to 73 percent.
- support for the direct election of the President collapsed, from 50 to 19 percent.
- levels of political information increased very substantially, notably in relation to the role and powers of the President.
- 84 percent believed that the monarchy represents British interests, compared to 64 percent before the deliberations.
- fewer believed that the change is expensive or that the Referendum is a distraction from other problems
- there was a dramatic increase in the proportions who believe that the President should be non-political-up from 53 to 88 percent.
- after the weekend few believed that the Australian flag would change as a result of a yes vote at the referendum-down from 59 to 8 percent.
Support for the republican model in the referendum increased dramatically between the first poll, in early September, and the Deliberative Poll. The proportion of the participants supporting the republican model increased from 53 percent prior to the deliberations to 73 percent afterwards. Following the deliberations, there were no uncommitted voters.
On the referendum question
|
|
Before Deliberation % |
After Deliberation % |
Difference % |
| Approve the proposed alteration to the constitution? | |||
| Yes | 53 | 73 | +20 |
| No | 40 | 27 | -13 |
| Uncommitted | 7 | - | -7 |
The referendum question involved the model of a President appointed by Parliament. But the public debate focused on direct election. Hence the Deliberative Poll probed attitudes about all three alternatives-the status quo, the appointed model and direct election.
Support for the direct election model as a first choice collapsed following the weekend's deliberations, with most of the participants favoring the model in the referendum proposal. Half of the participants favored a direction election model prior to the weekend, but only 19 percent did so after they had more information. A majority (61 percent) opted for the proposed model, the appointment of the President by Parliament.
First choice model
|
|
Before Deliberation % |
After Deliberation % |
Difference % |
| Change to a republic with a President directly elected by the people | 50 | 19 | -31 |
| Change to a republic with a President appointed by Parliament | 20 | 61 | +41 |
| Not change anything, keeping the Queen and the Governor-General in their current roles | 26 | 15 | -11 |
| None, don't know | 4 | 5 | +1 |
Major Increases in Levels of Political Knowledge
During the course of the weekend, levels of basic political information increased dramatically among the participants, and this was a major factor underlying the changes in opinions noted above. Prior to the weekend, just over half believed that they had enough information to vote on the republic; after the weekend, three out of 10 believed that they had enough information.
The most dramatic change was in relation to the role of the President. Prior to the deliberations, just 16 percent understood that the Prime Minister could remove the President at any time but must obtain approval from the House of Representatives; after the deliberations, 73 percent possessed this information, an increase of 57 percentage points.
Changes in Political Knowledge
|
|
Before Deliberation % |
After Deliberation % |
Difference % |
| Currently know enough to be able to vote on republic | 57 | 78 | +21 |
| Powers of president same relative to current Governor-General | 61 | 87 | +26 |
| Queen appoints the Governor-General only on advice of Prime Minister | 39 | 85 | +46 |
| President would be no more powerful than Governor-General is now | 61 | 76 | +15 |
Danish Deliberative Polling® on the Euro
On August 25-27, 2000, a national random sample of the Danish electorate gathered at the University of Southern Denmark at Odense in conjunction with DR (the national television network) and under the sponsorship of the publication Monday Morning. The Prime Minister, Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the Leader of the Opposition, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, and most of the prominent advocates on both sides of the debate over joining the single currency participated in the weekend's discussions answering questions from the sample. DR provided five and half-hours of national broadcast on television as well as extensive radio coverage.
A representative sample of 364 participants offered the following opinions.
Single European Currency
|
|
Before Deliberation % |
After Deliberation % |
Difference % |
| Yes on the Euro | 45 | 51 | +6 |
| No on the Euro | 36 | 40 | +4 |
| Undecided | 19 | 9 | -10 |
| Agree that: | |||
| "Being a member of the EU is positive for Denmark" | 68 | 75 | +7 |
| "Keeping our own currency is more important than possible economic gain from participating in the single currency" | 29 | 21 | -8 |
| "The single currency is a step toward 'the United States of Europe'" | 68 | 47 | -21 |
| Agree that Danish participation in The single currency: | |||
| "weakens the Danish welfare system" | 26 | 35 | +9 |
| "Gives Denmark a stronger say in EU decisions" | 57 | 64 | +7 |
Australian Deliberative Polling® on Aboriginal Reconciliation
On February 16-18, 2001 a national random sample of the Australian people was brought to the Old Parliament House in Canberra for a national Deliberative Poll that was broadcast on the Australian Broadcasting Corp.
The summary below is from the March 6, 2001 press conference convened by Dr. Pamela Ryan, Managing Director of Issues Deliberation Australia, the principal sponsoring organization. The Center for Deliberative Polling at the University of Texas, Austin was one of the co-sponsors of this project. More information on the Australian Deliberative Polls is available at http://www.ida.org.au.
Summary of Main Findings
When Australians had the opportunity to discuss and question intensely the diverse range of issues under the general topic of Reconciliation, opinion shifted dramatically.
- Perception of reconciliation as an important issue facing the nation rose dramatically from 31% (31%) prior to deliberations to 60% (63%) following deliberations.
- Perception of disadvantage of indigenous Australians in relation to other Australians rose dramatically: from 52% (51%) prior to deliberation to 80% (82%) post deliberation.
- Levels of political knowledge in relation to indigenous issues, government services and political leaders also rose substantially, with gains in knowledge ranging from 11(9) to 50 (52) percentage points depending on the item.
Correlating significantly with changes in perceptions of the importance of the issue, changes in perceptions of levels of indigenous disadvantage and increases in levels of political knowledge, were levels of support for a range of national initiatives:
- formal acknowledgement that Australia was occupied without consent of indigenous Australians: 68% (67%) to 81% (82%);
- formal acknowledgement that indigenous Australians were the original owners of the land and waters: 73% (74%) to 81% (82%);
- an apology to the "stolen generation": 46% (45%) to 68% (70%).
- In contrast, support for some initiatives remained relatively unchanged before and after deliberations:
- a treaty or set of agreements between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians;
- allocation of special seats in parliament for indigenous Australians
Where support increased for other initiatives, such as land rights and compensation to 'the stolen generation', support was based on specific conditions, such as proof of historical/cultural links with the land, and proof of physical, emotional, financial and cultural deprivation as a result of removal.
In terms of government focus for the future: following deliberation, support for education as the key priority rose significantly from 42% to 59% (42%-55%), while health, unemployment and housing all dropped by an average of ten percentage points.
[Note: first percentages quoted are those controlled for indigenous participation in group discussion, sample size =240, percentages in parentheses are those for the complete national random sample of 344]
New Haven Deliberative Polling® on Regional Economic Cooperation
The New Haven Regional Dialogue, Deliberative Polling( conducted at Yale University showed dramatic changes of opinion on the issue of local revenue sharing. A randomly-selected and representative sample of residents of the fifteen towns in the New Haven region spent the weekend, March 1-3, 2002, considering regional eonomic policy. When they completed their discussions, they supported voluntary revenue sharing among towns and state provision of incentives to encourage sharing of new revenues from commercial development.
Participants moved strongly away from the proposition that "my town should maintain local control over all of its tax revenues from new businesses and industries." When first interviewed, 80 per cent agreed with this statement. After deliberation, support fell to 42%.
By contrast, voluntary agreements for sharing of incremental revenue showed a dramatic increase in support. Before deliberation 64% agreed that "my town should try for a voluntary agreement with other towns in the region to share some tax revenues from new businesses and industries." After deliberation, support rose to 81%. Support also increased from 68% to 80% for the state's providing "incentives for towns in the region to share some tax revenues for new businesses and industry."
Participants also showed increases in their levels of information. For example, before the weekend, only 8% knew that Connecticut law allows communities to share property tax revenues. After the weekend, 69% knew. The percentage who knew that the rate of job growth in the New Haven region was less than the national average during the 1990's, rose from 44% to 75%.
Evaluations of the process by the participants were strongly positive. Large majorities, 87% thought that the members of their small groups "participated relatively equally in the discussion". 94% felt that the moderator "did not try to influence the group with his or her own views". 79% of participants gave the process an 8,9 or 10 on a 0 to 10 scale and felt that the process as a whole was highly valuable
Opinions on Deliberative Polling®
"Deliberative Polling® is the most promising innovation in democratic practice of which I am aware. I hope that in the coming century, it will be widely adopted in the United States and other democratic countries."
Robert A. Dahl
Sterling Professor of Political Science Emeritus
Yale University
"An innovative method for bridging the chasm between the electors and the elected"
Walter Shapiro
Time Magazine
"Deliberative Polling® combines two familiar techniques--sample surveys and focus groups--into a powerful new technique for gauging informed public opinion. I think it is the most innovative approach to studying public opinion since the development of scientific polling in the 1930's"
Norman Bradburn
Senior Vice President for Research, National Opinion Research
Center at the University of Chicago
"From the point of view of citizenship and democratic values, the Deliberative polling® design is a delightfully fresh departure. From the scientific point of view, it holds promise of carrying us well beyond what we have learned to date from standard opinion surveys about how voters process new information bearing on their political beliefs. This is a visionary kind of inquiry."
Philip E. Converse
Professor Emeritus, The University of Michigan
co-author, The American Voter
"An exciting concept... It has the potential to dramatically change a generally detached electorate contained in small self-indulgent pens, bounded by ignorance and cynicism, into a far-better informed and involved body of voters, unbounded in their urges to fully comprehend the issues they define and then to participate in the process to see their studied views become active reality."
Jane Ely
Columnist, Houston Chronicle
"Is there not something enlightening, indeed heartening, in watching voters who mirror us all wrestling with issues, listening with respect to the views of others, trying to find consensus?...[a] promising, important, innovation in American democracy."
Neal R. Peirce
Nationally Syndicated Columnist
"The potential contribution [of Deliberative Polling] to a better-informed democracy is great . . . It is in the interest of all that it should be encouraged."
The Independent (London)
Editorial "Knowledge Can Change Minds"
"Deliberative Polling (as developed by Professor James Fishkin at the University of Texas has the potential to show policymakers and the public what well-informed citizens would think about complex issues. This potential was demonstrated at the National Issues Convention in Austin as well as in other Deliberative Polls held locally in Texas and nationally in Great Britain. In my judgment, this kind of research could be of great use to the legislative process as well as to efforts to better inform the public."
Representative Bill Archer
R., Texas, and Chairman, House Ways and Means
Committee
"I think it's a wonderful development. And if there is anybody in this group who wonders whether or not this is going anywhere or has accomplished anything, you should stop wondering because I think it has been a tremendous success. I think you have started something great here. And I think that the great Barbara Jordan, who died this past week, should be remembered for many things, but among them should be her work in helping to make this whole event and process happen."
Vice President Al Gore
National Issues Convention broadcast, January 16, 1996
Contact Information on Deliberative Democracy
Website
cdd.stanford.edu
Email
cdd-stanford@lists.stanford.edu
Director, Center for Deliberative Democracy
Professor James Fishkin
Stanford University
450 Serra Mall Bldg 120
McClatchy Hall
Stanford, CA 94305-2050
650-723-2260
Fax 650-725-2472
cdd-stanford@lists.stanford.edu
Research Advisors
Professor Robert C. Luskin
Department of Government
University of Texas at Austin
Austin, TX 78712-1087
512-232-1676
rcl@mail.la.utexas.edu
Professor Shanto Iyengar
Department of Communication
Stanford University
Professor Larry Lessig
Law School
Stanford University
Research Assistants
Kyu Hahn
Jennifer McGrady
Alice Siu
Joyce Ichinose
Manager, Center for Deliberative Democracy
Senior Advisors
Dr. Charls Walker
(former Deputy Secretary of the Treasury)
10120 Chapel Road
Potomac, MD 20854
301-299-5414
Fax 301-299-5024
charlswalk@aol.com
Daniel Werner, President
MacNeil/Lehrer Productions
2700 S. Quincy #250
Arlington, VA 22206
703-998-2847
Fax 703-998-5707
dwerner@newshour.org