The 20-page article, Taking the Goals of Deliberation Seriously: A Differentiated View on Equality and Equity in Deliberative Designs and Processes (2016), was written by Edana Beauvais and Andre Baechtiger, and published in the Journal of Public Deliberation: Vol. 12: Iss. 2. The article reviews the goals of healthy deliberative systems and the different designs of civic forums, including participant recruitment, nature of interaction, and decision-making. The authors reviews research which shows evidence that the design of a deliberative system affects its outcomes and goals. Read an excerpt of the […] (continue)

Written by NCDD director Sandy Heierbacher to expand upon the text on our “What Are Dialogue & Deliberation?” page. This resource provides enough details to enable you to decide which of these leading dialogue and deliberation methods you should learn more about. In addition to looking at which methods fit your intentions, you will need to consider which methods are aligned with your resources, timeline, and the people you feel need to be involved. The text below is drawn from NCDD’s Engagement Streams Framework. AmericaSpeaks […] (continue)

This September 2, 2010 article by Joe Klein on the Time Magazine website compares Jim Fishkin's Deliberative Polling process with the kleroterion process used in ancient Athens (a citizen decision-making process that used random selection), and suggests that rather than appointing a "blue-ribbon" commission to study the federal deficit, Obama ought to have initiated a deliberative democracy program using Deliberative Polling. (continue)

All over the world, democratic reforms have brought power to the people, but under conditions where the people have little opportunity to think about the power that they exercise. In this 2009 book, NCDD member James Fishkin, creator of Deliberative Polling, combines a new theory of democracy with actual practice and shows how an idea that harks back to ancient Athens can be used to revive our modern democracies. (continue)

NCDD member Jim Fishkin was featured in a May 6, 2010 article in The Economist print edition. Jim is the Director of the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford and creator of the Deliberative Poll. The article, titled “Ancient Athens online: Democracy is about discussion, not just voting” can be viewed in full at this link on The Economist’s website. The full text is quoted below. (continue)

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)

Innovative forms of public participation challenge the idea that activists must inevitably be caught up in consultation methods that are tokenistic or manipulative. Citizens' juries, consensus conferences, deliberative polls and televotes' these methods hold promise for enhanced representativeness and offer the added benefit of creating deliberative spaces for sound decision making. (continue)

Below are dozens of links to dialogue and deliberation success stories and case studies that are available online. Approaches covered include Deliberative Polling, Citizens Juries, Future Search, National Issues Forums, Jewish-Palestinian Dialogue, AmericaSpeaks, Study Circles, the Public Conversations Project, and Wisdom Councils. NCDD has been compiling these resources for the D&D community for several years, but we could really use your help keeping this page updated. Email us at ncdd@thataway.org with your additions and changes. (continue)

The mission of Common Sense California is to serve as a civic bridge between the citizens of California and our elected officials. We hope to improve and reform the broken system of governance in California so that, together, we can face and resolve the significant, long term challenges facing our state. We span a broad spectrum of professional disciplines and perspectives. We are Republicans, Democrats and Independents. (continue)

Building on the success of citizen juries and deliberative polling, Gastil proposes improving our current process by convening randomly selected panels of citizens to deliberate for several days on ballot measures and candidates. Voters would learn about the judgments of these citizen panels through voting guides and possibly information printed on official ballots. The result would be a more representative government and a less cynical public. (continue)