Tiny House
More About The National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation • Join Now!
Community News

Posts with the Tag “Deliberative Polling”

Online Deliberative Polling

Online Deliberative Polling is an extension of a well-established methodology (Deliberative Polling, created by James Fishkin) that measures opinion change within a random scientific sample of the public. Central to this methodology is an opportunity to discuss the issues with fellow citizens and question a panel of leading experts. The first experiment in Online Deliberation Polling took place January 2003 as a prominent part of MacNeil/Lehrer Productions' By the People project. (continue)

Deliberative Polling

Deliberative Polling (continue)

Designing for Deliberative Democracy: Theory and Practice

The author of this presentation shows deliberative polling and a small sample of online deliberation as possible designs for deliberative democracy. For deliberative polling, the author reviews Fishkin's model as well as displays a New Haven Regional Deliberative Poll as an example. The online deliberation models under review are e-thePeople, Web Lab, and Unchat, among others. (continue)

Doing Democracy: How Deliberative Polling Works

Citizens are looking for a stronger voice in government decision making. They are becoming less willing to have decisions made for them by government, and are more inclined to trust their own judgment in political matters. This 2001 paper byNancy Averill (Canadian Government Executive, 1, 11-13) provides an overview of deliberative polling, detailing how it can give powerful insights into the public's true thoughts. (continue)

Experimenting with Deliberative Democracy: Effects on Policy Preferences and Social Choice

Using data from the first fully randomized field experiment within a Deliberative Poll, we examine the effects of the Deliberative Poll's formal on-site deliberations on both policy preferences and "preference structuration" or single-peakedness (operationally, the proportion of individuals whose preferences are aligned along the same shared dimension). The issues were airport expansion and revenue sharing in New Haven, Connecticut and its surrounding towns. We find that deliberation significantly altered aggregate policy preferences and increased the degree of single-peakedness on revenue sharing, though not airport expansion. These results both confirm the promise of civic deliberation as a means of transforming citizen preferences and raise the question of how deliberation's effects may depend on the kind of issue being deliberated. (continue)

Hear! Hear! For Citizen Input

Sometimes politics gets in the way of democracy, according to the author of this paper. The author goes on to tell how "This week, CPRN released the results of a dialogue with a randomly selected group of 250 Ontario citizens on the province's budget strategy for the next four years. Because it had been commissioned by the government, it was rejected as useless in the Ontario legislature." The paper further explains deliberative democracy and how it functions in other societies in contrast to Canadian usage. (continue)

Learning and Voting in Britain: Insights from the Deliberative Poll

After some roadblocks, the authors finally mounted a Deliberative Poll centering on electoral choice, this in connection with the British General Election of May 1, 1997. The weekend before the election, a random sample of the British electorate was gathered to the Granada Television Studio in Manchester, given a chance to consider the some of the key economic issues in the General Election campaign then entering its final days, and, at the end, polled on voting intention. (continue)

The Deliberative Fix? The Role of Staged Deliberation in a Deliberative Democracy

In this paper, the authors begin by setting deliberative events in a broader context of deliberative forums or arenas. The authors distinguish three potential arenas of deliberation: the 'normal, the 'informal' and the 'staged'. They briefly describe three well-known deliberative events, citizens' juries, consensus conferences and deliberative polls. After setting out the benefits and criticisms of these three deliberative events, the authors realize that although the criticisms raise important issues, they do not justify abandoning deliberative events. (continue)

The Effect of Information and Deliberation on Policy Attitude Extremity: Evidence from the 1997 British General Election Deliberative Poll

This paper explores the effects of information and deliberation on the extremity of attitudes about public policy issues. It asks whether informed individuals have extreme or moderate attitudes and how attitude extremity is affected by Deliberative Polling. Much previous research suggests that information and extremity are positively related, but other research has found a negative relationship. It appears that the relationship between information and extremity is more complex than originally thought. I find evidence that the type of information an individual holds determines whether attitudes are extreme or moderate. (continue)

Random Selection of Citizens for Technological Decision Making

This paper considers citizen participation in technological decision-making through random selection deliberative mechanisms such as citizens' jury, consensus conference, televote and deliberative poll. (continue)

-