“We have thousands of polls all the time that show what the public is thinking when it isn’t thinking,” said James Fishkin at his lecture on Deliberative Democracy last Thursday.

Fishkin is a professor of communication and political science at Stanford University and a prolific author on the subject of deliberative democracy, as well as the head of The Center for Deliberative Democracy (CDD) at Stanford.

A deliberative poll is a special type of poll similar to a normal poll in that a random sample of the desired population is taken in order to proportionally represent everyone. The difference is that instead of asking people their opinions on the spot, deliberative polls ask the participants to meet either in person or online to discuss the issues at hand.

Before meeting, the people are given background information on the topics so that they have well-formed opinions about the issue, instead of “non-attitudes.” Non-attitudes are opinions that people form on the spot, not necessarily based on knowledge. Fishkin cited several examples of how people are more willing to present a definite opinion than to admit that they have none.

“What the deliberative poll does is it represents what ‘We the People’ would think if we were more informed … and had a chance to think about [the issue at hand],” he said.

Fishkin gave an example of an experiment in which people were called and asked what they thought about an act that didn’t really exist.  A majority of people held a firm opinion on it. Several years later, the same people were polled and asked the exact same question, and most of them had switched their answer.

Fishkin hopes the deliberative poll will not only educate those involved, but motivate them to reject “rational ignorance,” the belief that one’s vote or voice is so tiny compared to the masses that it is not worth learning about the issues.  He also hopes it will provide a better guideline for politicians who want to know the wishes of their contingents.

To illustrate this, Fishkin cited the case of a deliberative poll that greatly shaped energy production in Texas.  Texans were polled about their opinions on energy sources and providers. They expressed a great desire for some degree of renewable energy at a somewhat higher price. 

“The Commissioner for Public Utilities was so enthusiastic that he immediately put the changes into effect…. Texas is now a world leader in renewable energy as a direct result [of the deliberative poll],” said Fishkin. 

One of the chief problems with the deliberative poll is the chance that a very small minority could be almost unrepresented in the debate, and therefore suffer what Fishkin calls “the tyranny of the majority.” This was a problem in a deliberative poll in Australia that had to do with the aborigines, who comprise approximately two percent of the population. In that poll, the aboriginal population was deliberately oversampled so that they would have a stronger voice in the deliberations.

Another problem faced by deliberative polls is that it is very expensive to coax a large, diverse group of people to travel far and wide to stay at single location for a weekend for the purposes of the poll. People must be paid for their trouble as well as accommodated in hotels. Fishkin sees the Internet as being the eventual solution to this problem.

“While there are advantages to face-to-face deliberations, online deliberations can take place across much larger spaces and for months instead of one weekend,” said Fishkin. “It’s also much cheaper to buy the necessary microphones, video, and computer equipment for people who don’t have it than to have them meet face-to-face…. [This method] includes more of the population, as in for instance the handicapped who cannot make it to the deliberation site….”

The CDD has scheduled Deliberation Day for October 16. According to Fishkin, PBS By the People will be working to mobilize communities to hold their own discussions in the style of deliberative polls to get people involved in their own political lives.

The results of deliberative polls and background information are typically made public so that people not participating in the poll can still follow the action.