dp overview jf genevac2.pptx (read-only) · 34 poll no. of small groups no. of indices proportion...

1

Center for Deliberative Democracy http://cdd.stanford.edu

Public consultation: Two basic questions

• Who is consulted?

• What kind of opinion is solicited?

2

3

Method Of Selection

Public Opinion

Self-selection

Non-random

Random sample “Everyone”

Raw SLOPS Some polls Most polls Ref. democracy

Refined Discussion

groups Citizens,

Juries, etc. Deliberative

Polls “Deliberation

Day”

!Eight Forms of Public Consultation!!

Public Opinion: Three Problems

• Rational Ignorance

• Phantom Opinions

• Selectivity of Sources

4

Key components:

• Balanced information

• Small group deliberation

• Expert Q & As

5

• Random sampling/ representative samples

• Control groups who do not deliberate

6

Key components:

7

Projects!Around!the!World!•  Delibera5ve!Polls!have!been!conducted!in!18!countries!(plus!some!addi5onal!jurisdic5ons):!Argen5na,!Australia,!Brazil,!Bulgaria,!Canada,!China,!Denmark,!Greece,!Hungary,!Italy,!Japan,!Korea,!Macao,!the!Netherlands,!N.!Ireland,!Poland,!Thailand,!UK,!and!US.!

•  In!addi5on,!EuropeanQwide!with!all!27!countries!(twice:!2007!and!2009)!

•  Mul5ple!DPs,!in!the!UK,!US,!China,!Italy,!Japan,!Bulgaria,!Australia!and!Hungary.!

8

•  representa5on!•  opinion!change!•  informa5on!gain!•  avoiding!distor5ons!•  impact!on!policy!•  beXer!ci5zens!

Criteria For Evaluation

9

10

Tomorrow’s!Europe!EUQwide!Delibera5ve!Poll:!

On!Re5rement!

1. Support for “raising the retirement age” increased

from 26% (before) to 40% (after); +14%

2. Support for “making it attractive to work longer before retiring” increased

from 57% (before) to 70% (after); +13%

3. Participants realized "keeping the retirement rules the way they are will bankrupt the retirement system" increased

from 50% (before) to 59% (after); +9%

11

EUQwide!Delibera5ve!Poll:!Knowledge!Gains!

•  9!Knowledge!Ques5ons,!Average!Gain!of!+16%!(from!39%!to!55%)!!–  gains!ranged!from!+10%!to!+23%!

!Election of EU Parliament Members

54% (before), 77% (after); +23%

EU Budgeting 51% (before), 74% (after); +23%

EU’s Foreign Aid Budget 22% (before), 44% (after); +22%

European!Wide!Delibera5ve!Poll!on!Energy!and!Climate!Change!

Brussels!2009!

12

“We!should!do!everything!possible!to!combat!climate!change!even!if!it!hurts!the!economy!“

Support rose from 49% to 61% (+12%)

“The!EU!should!reduce!greenhouse!gas!emissions!as!rapidly!as!possible!even!if!that!means!that!we!have!to!make!radical!changes!in!the!way!we!live”!

Support rose from 72% to 85% (+13%)

“Manufacturers!should!be!required!to!produce!automobiles!that!need!less!fuel!per!mile!driven,!even!if!that!means!that!they!cost!more!to!buy”!

Support rose from 76% to 85% (+9%)

“By!the!People”!Na5onal!Delibera5ve!Poll!Philadelphia!2003!

Na5onal!PBS!Broadcast!

13

Per Cent Answering Correctly Before After

Knowledge:!“Amount!of!US!spending!on!foreign!aid”

19%

64%

Per Cent of Support Before After

Support for “Increased Spending on foreign aid”

20% 53%

15

Greek Deliberative Poll for Candidate Selection Preliminary Results June 2006

16

China - April 2005

Japan,!Na5onal!DP!on!Energy!

•  Sample!Representa5veness,!Demographics!–  285!par5cipants,!6564!nonQpar5cipants!–  Representa5ve!in!Age,!Prefecture!–  Sample!was!slightly!more!male!and!had!fewer(housewives/part(2me(workers(

•  Aftudinal!Representa5veness!– No!significant!differences!on!3!policy!scenarios!regarding!nuclear!power!!

–  Some!differences!in!importance!of!issues!such!as!stable(supply,!safety,(and(global(warming!

Japan,!Na5onal!DP!on!Energy!

60!47.8!

29.8!

67.4!

40.4!23.9!

0%#scenario# 15%#scenario# 20/25%#scenario#

%#Support#for#Three#Nuclear#Energy#Scenarios#

Time!1!

Time!3!

Bulgaria!(2007)!

•  Na5onal!Project!on!Policies!Toward!the!Roma!– “The!Roma!schools!should!be!closed!and!all!the!children!should!be!transported!by!buses!to!their!school.”!Agreement!rose!from!42!to!66!percent.!

– “Roma!schools!should!be!preserved.”!Agreement!fell!from!46!to!24!percent.!

21

® ,

Community Perceptions

Time 136%

Time 140%

Time 150%

Time 150%

Time 2 52%

Time 2 56%

Time 2 60%

Time 2 62%

Most Protestants are“open to reason”

Most Catholics are“open to reason”

Most Protestants are“trustworthy”

Most Catholics are“trustworthy”

What’s!Next!California?!(WNC)!

•  StateQwide!Delibera5ve!Poll!!– Torrance,!CA!–  June!24Q26,!2011!– 412!registered!voters!par5cipated!(93%!aXendance!)!

– Topics:!Ini5a5ve!Process,!Legisla5ve!Representa5on,!State/Local!Reform,!Taxa5on!

22

WNC!Q!Legisla5ve!Representa5on!support!for!longer!legisla5ve!terms!

•  “Lengthening!Assembly!terms!from!2!years!to!4!and!Senate!terms!from!4!years!to!6”!

Support#Increased#–#35%#

24

25

% who said they strongly or somewhat prefer:

Pre, 45%

Post, 38%

Pre, 51%

Post, 62%

converting bedsin other

resources

keeping all theexisting beds

Higher Education Solutions Network http://www.usaid.gov/hesn

!ResilientAfrica Makerere University -- Stanford University Goal ResilientAfrica will innovate and accelerate science and technology based development tools in concert with a diverse set of stakeholders to improve African resilience to stresses and strains.

27

Utility Deliberative Poll®

52%

84%

Time 1 Time 2 28

Illustrative Preference Changes

Average of 8 Utility Deliberative Polls Time 1 Time 2 Percentage willing to pay extra for increased 52% 84% wind and solar power

43%

73%

Time 1 Time 2

29

Illustrative Preference Changes

Average of 8 Utility Deliberative Polls Time 1 Time 2 Percentage willing to pay more to reduce the 43% 73% need for electricity (demand side management)

30

31

•  The!percentage!thinking!"years!in!service"!was!important!in!awarding!pay!increases!went!from!65.6%!before!delibera5on!to!48.8%!aoerward!(p<.01).!

12.0%

22.2%

65.6%

24.0%

27.2%

48.8%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0%

Unimportant

In the middle

Important

Unimportant In the middle Important After 24.0% 27.2% 48.8% Before 12.0% 22.2% 65.6%

PB#New#Cycle#

Deliberative Polling

34

Poll

No. of Small

Groups No. of

Indices

Proportion of small group

means moving away from midpoint

Proportion with

decreasing variance

Australia 24 5 0.525 0.617 British Crime 20 5 0.460 0.530 British Europe 16 4 0.563 0.328 British General Election 15 4 0.383 0.650 British Health 15 13 0.518 0.564 British Monarchy 15 4 0.567 0.567 Bulgaria I 17 13 0.394 0.511 China 16 10 0.475 0.706 Greece 15 6 0.333 0.233 New Haven 16 3 0.479 0.542 NIC I 26 7 0.582 0.637 NIC II 24 9 0.713 0.694 Utilities: Cpl 16 8 0.594 0.625 Utilities: Swepco 14 8 0.518 0.598 Utilities: Wtu 14 8 0.429 0.634

Average 17.5 7.1 0.502 0.562

Small!Group!Mechanisms!Across!15!Delibera5ve!Polls:!Polariza5on!

Source: Robert C. Luskin, James S. Fishkin, Kyu Hahn, and Alice Siu, "Downsides of Deliberation? Polarization, Consensus, and Social Influence in Small Group Discussion." Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University http://cdd.stanford.edu

35

Dataset

Proportion of small groups

moving towards: T1 Male

Proportion of small groups

moving towards: T1 Higher Educated

Proportion of small groups

moving towards: T1 Higher Income

Proportion of small groups

moving towards: T1 White

Australia 0.4 1 0.6 -

British Crime 0.4 0.6 - 0.2

British Europe 0.75 0.5 - 0.25

British General Election 0.5 1 0.75 0.25

British Health 0.538 0.538 0.462 0.615

British Monarchy 0.25 0.5 - 0

Bulgaria I 0.692 0.692 0.692 0.385

China 0.4 0.5 - -

Greece 0.167 0.333 0.167 -

New Haven 0.333 1 0.667 0.333

NIC I 0.286 0.571 0.429 0.571

NIC II 0.667 0.556 0.667 0.667

Utilities, Cpl 0.375 0.5 0.25 0.375

Utilities, Swepco 0.25 0.375 0.75 0.625

Utilities, Wtu 0.375 0.375 0.5 0.5

Average 0.426 0.603 0.539 0.398

Small Group Inequality Movements – Across 15 Deliberative Polls

Source: Robert C. Luskin, James S. Fishkin, Kyu Hahn, and Alice Siu, "Downsides of Deliberation? Polarization, Consensus, and Social Influence in Small Group Discussion." Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University http://cdd.stanford.edu

36