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