Summary
Highlights
James Fishkin introduces the idea that democracy is currently under threat. Institutions have low approval ratings, and authoritarian regimes like China and Singapore seem to operate effectively, causing people to question the theoretical and practical aspects of democracy. He proposes a solution rooted in deliberation, where people think in an evidence-based way, communicate, and weigh policy proposals.
Fishkin critiques existing forms of democracy. Party competition focuses on winning elections through tactics like negative ads and misinformation, rather than fostering thoughtful discussion. He points out that historical institutions like the Senate and the Electoral College, originally envisioned for deliberation, have devolved into partisanship and deadlock. Participatory democracy, seen in ballot propositions, often leads to public confusion due to misleading information and rational ignorance, where individuals feel their single vote doesn't warrant extensive research into complex issues.
Fishkin highlights problems with public opinion polling, including rational ignorance and phantom opinions. People, when polled, often invent opinions on non-existent policies rather than admitting ignorance. This is compounded by the 'selectivity of sources,' where individuals choose to engage only with like-minded people and media, leading to a lack of exposure to diverse viewpoints.
As a solution, Fishkin introduces 'deliberative polling.' This method involves preparing thoroughly vetted, balanced materials on an issue for discussion. Diverse, moderated small groups then engage in civil dialogue. He shares examples, such as a deliberative poll in Britain on crime, where participants, even a car thief, contributed meaningfully. This process helps overcome rational ignorance by making individuals' voices count in smaller, focused groups.
Deliberative polling has been implemented in 28 countries. Examples include addressing the future of Europe with participants from 27 countries, deciding on nuclear power in South Korea where the public surprisingly opted to finish existing reactors for clean energy, and informing energy policy in Texas, leading to a significant increase in wind power adoption. These examples demonstrate how informed public deliberation can lead to unexpected and impactful policy decisions.
Mongolia has even institutionalized deliberative polling, requiring it before considering constitutional amendments. This led to public support for changes to the presidential election process, the addition of a second chamber, and the creation of an independent civil service and judiciary, preventing political parties from manipulating government ministries for patronage. This signifies a lasting impact on governance through deliberative practices.
Fishkin expresses his hope to implement deliberative polling at the beginning of the next U.S. presidential election cycle to foster more thoughtful engagement from citizens, building on past successes in California where it led to modest but reasonable reforms in the initiative system, making it easier for citizens to understand who funds and opposes ballot measures.