Do one of the following: 1) Describe a public meeting or hearing in which you have been involved. How successful do you consider it to have been as a forum for decision-makers to get meaningful guidance from the public? Describe the factors that either led to its success or contributed to its ineffectiveness. 2) Study this Summary and this chart that explain James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process. Comment on the strengths and weaknesses of this process as an alternative to traditional public meetings and hearings.
70 thoughts on “Public Meetings and Hearings”
Comments are closed.
Compared to a traditional public meeting or hearing, where the public can ask questions to the politicians, a Deliberative Polling has several strengths. The citizens are given a chance to become more informed and then arrive at considered judgments based on not only the information they get from the polling but also the exposure to the views of other citizens. In addition, a Deliberative Polling promotes participation as every citizen attending the polling can express their views. It can increase citizens’ feeling of engagement with the political process. Due to the time limit, it is rare for everyone to speak out in a traditional meeting. Further more, deliberative polling in essence is a polling method, providing more accurate data on public opinions for policy makers and analysts. A Deliberate Polling also goes through a process of random selection to reduce the bias so that the citizens attending the poll will be more representative of the population.
A major weakness of the Deliberative Polling is the extremely high cost of the time and resources to organize such an event. It may be arguable that the benefit of a Deliberative Polling can outweigh its cost. The media exposure may also influence the public opinions the citizens make. The citizens may improve their behavior and response under the spotlight. They would worry to display biases in the public, so their public opinions may not truly reflect what are in their mind.
I agree that a major weakness is the time and resources it takes to organize an event. I’m not sure how arguable it is that the benefits outweigh the costs since the benefits are really only for a small group of people.
You cover all the major weaknesses in your assessment of the Deliberative Polling process. This process is very high cost and time consuming for low benefits. One has to take the time to commission a poll, analyze the results, send invitations to hundreds of the respondents, send them information packets, rent a place and hire moderates, hope they attend, and discuss the issues. It is hard to argue that this style of deliberation does produce results, as many of the attendants do change their opinions after the deliberation. However, it is a voluntary event in which only a few hundred people attend. It is great that these individuals become more educated. But, it may not be he most efficient way in which to do so.
It seems like there are many advantages to Deliberative Polling. I agree with you that this method provides policy makers with a more representative picture of public opinion and also allows for individuals to feel more involved in the process of government. I don’t know if I necessarily believe that reporting the results through the media has a negative influence in terms of Deliberative Polling. However, the information the government releases prior to Deliberative polling could influence individual’s answers throughout and be used to shape the public opinion.
I also agree that the major weakness is the time and resources used to initiate an event. The process can be very costly and time consuming. It takes time to look at all the possibility and to come at a conclusion especially if it only benefits a small group.
I think that the time and resources is a necessary trade-off if we want citizens to be more informed about important issues. All actors in the process have to invest more time and money becoming informed / informing about policies. More research is needed to figure out a more efficient mode than deliberative polling!
I agree that deliberative polling can allow for more people to have their voices heard than at a traditional meeting. Everyone is allowed to speak in their groups and a decision is formed with everyone’s opinion taken into account. I think that people who attend these types of meetings will feel more satisfied with their experience than those who attend traditional meetings. They will feel like their voices have been heard, whereas at a traditional meeting they may have not gotten a chance to speak.
I think Corbin and Katie got it right: the cost/benefit analysis is not in favor of delliberative polling. Considering that just the forum portion can take a few days, and that realistically, all that time would be spent discussing one or two issues. In order for it to be implemented systematically, you’d have to have various reports on each issues prepared, and try to schedule the meetings regularly enough so that the public can participate. This method may be useful to reserve for “big” issues where there is an overwhelming public divide. But time will always be the constraining factor and it is an unlikely choice to adopt in government to create regular deliberation. However, it could be useful in the nonprofit sector (e.g. think tanks, institutions that conduct general polls) where the focus on specific issues is more narrow for longer periods of time.
I agree that it is in essence a poll, in fact it reminds me of a type of focus group. The results could potentially help lawmakers find popular areas of compromise on an issue. If Deliberative Polling were done on randomly selected, self-described strong conservatives and strong liberals, I’d be very curious to see the agreements they could come to. Such a poll could give nervous members of Congress a path to compromise on issues that they could reasonably expect to sell to their base constituents.
Beyond that kind of utility, I don’t see Deliberative Polling as very workable. One issue I have is the many steps where the guidance is supposed to be “balanced.” In my opinion, bias is unavoidable in public policy, and this group will ultimately be swayed one way or another by the materials and the moderators.
I believe you summed up the situation in its entirety. I loved the concept of America Works and I am so sorry it is no longer active. Although deliberative polling has a high cost and must take months to organize, I think it an excellent way for “we the people” to have a voice.
Fishkin introduced the Deliberative Poll to show the shortcomings of public opinion. He refers that the leaders are not informed and they have lack of background knowledge. Therefore, the citizens stay uninformed about the issue. However, deliberative polling is designed to figure out citizen’s reflection on a specific issue where citizens will acquire sufficient background knowledge to interact with the policy makers to understand various policy positions
Following is the strengths and weakness of deliberative poll:
Strengths:
Deliberative Poll create diverse group of participants. Furthermore, it create opportunities to get feedback from experts and followers. There is specific time range for deliberation. Deliberation is a mixture of representative sampling, sample size, and detailed post-deliberation assessment. However, these rewards also have some drawbacks.
By contrast, the Deliberative Poll knocks only the influence on education, discussion, and reflection in a short period of time.
If the Deliberative Poll is more organized, citizen will have chance to interact with experts and partisans.
It is very good idea for experts and partisans to cross examine one another at the time of hearing testimony.
Weakness:
# The common critique for deliberative poll is that the final outcome from the survey data is sometimes flawed.
#sometimes the survey data is not exact because the outcome of the data comes from various polling event .Also, the judgment of the participants can impact the deliberative poll.
# The Deliberative Poll, does not provide enough time for face-to-face deliberation. Citizens need time to work through the nuances of issues and adequately hear each other’s views.
In the Deliberative Poll, face to face deliberation time is very short and limited. Therefore, citizens sometimes unable to understand the important element of the issue.
My own experience with a public meeting was approximately two years ago when the management company of my building decided to send all tenants a notice that the old fashioned keys would be replaced with electronic keys. Basically, the locks on the front entrance and side door were going to be issued to only people who could show identification and were on the lease. My neighbor is on the community board in Astoria and rallied the tenants to protest this action because it directly effects the tenants autonomy in having visitors and house guests. There was a large meeting in the lobby and the majority of the tenants were against this new system that also involved a security camera which filmed each person as they went into and out of the building. The close monitoring was an initiative to prevent tenants from renting out rooms or sub-leasing the apartments. Despite numerous complaints, reports to city, and the outright refusal of the new electronic key itself; the new system was implemented anyway.
The management personnel and the superintendent vacillated between campaigning for the electronic key and behavior hostile to the tenants. In the end the landlord won. The whole process seemed like a waste of time but it was actually funny. Some of the most aggressive behavior came from the senior residents who were ex-hippies in the 1960s. Really hilarious.
I think the tenants may have been more successful in conveying their discontent with the proposed key change if they had a conversation with management. It doesn’t seem like there was much deliberation between the two parties, which most likely caused management to go ahead with their plans despite the tenant’s disapproval. I often find that when people can present themselves in a calm manner with proper evidence and support for their argument that they have a better time changing someone’s mind or at the very least reaching an agreement. In the end, in spite of management’s true intentions of monitoring tenants, it seems as though the building is being made a lot safer and the tenants should be happy.
I agree, it seems that there was no form of deliberation base on the issue that is presented. Management can make changes but if the majority has an issue with a change, then there is opportunity to amend based on the majority.
We did everything including citing the building for asking for pictures identification of minors. The landlord owns many different buildings in NYC and has a team of lawyers. Ours was the last building to get the electronic key fob system. We did not go quitely.
I actually had this same thing happen in my building a few years ago; however, management did not give us the chance to deliberate against it. They decided that we would convert to an electronic key, and only two members in each household would be given a free key, all additional member would have to pay $25.00 each. There was a lot of backlash from the community, because if a person’s name is on the lease, they should be given a key to the building. However, management did not acknowledge our opinion and simply continued with the change and the fee.
I’m surprised the building management didn’t do a better P.R. job. I would’ve done everything possible to spin it into a security modernization issue by stating the following:
1. Camera’s in the hallway and public areas of the building are to protect from unwanted intrusion into the building itself (nothing to do with monitoring tenants). In this era of digital monitoring, cameras are standard security tools and they would be placed that monitor entry points into the facility WITHOUT intruding on the units; and
2. Electronic keys provide additional security. They can be deactivated if lost and easily replaced with a new one (you can replace a lost key but the lost copy still works). In addition, I would’ve addressed tenant concerns about access to the electronic key cards by providing access to additional key cards with an application process whereby they disclose who its being provided to.
There are few things which are not very clear to draw a conclusion. The issue seems to be legit one if it was to prohibit the tenant to sublet their place. It is normally the owner’s right and part of the contract that the apartment must be resided by the lease owner. In that case, public was looking for an unfair favor. It cannot be possible to monitor the movement to protect the owner’s right without breaching their privacy. Moreover, this kind of security system is quiet common and available in many places.
It is also not clear to me why the visitors or guests won’t be allowed if the new system is implemented. There is normally provision and protocol for visitors even in the most secured place. Did the management announce something like no visitor or guest policy was in effect?
In my opinion, the management could convince the tenants that the new key implementation will only increase the security and convenience. Also they could explain clearly the above mentioned issues to be on the same page.
James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process is an interesting take on public deliberation and public opinion of which I have never heard of prior to this class. When reviewing his polling process and following deliberative groups, it is easy to notice both the strengths and weaknesses of Fishkin’s process.
There are many strengths and appealing features of the Deliberative Polling process. First, it captures both quantitative and qualitative research methods. To begin with, the population is polled on certain issues (qualitative). Second, a representative sample of the original polling population is brought together to discuss the issues they were polled about originally in groups (qualitative). Prior to their group discussions, the individuals are give information packets in which they study and become more educated on certain subj acts. As Fishkin’s process shows, the process of educating the population is vitally important in deliberation as the individuals often change their answers after the deliberation groups from what they stated in the original polls. It brings citizens together to discuss issues, and become educated on said issues.
The glaring weakness of this strategy is that it is clearly time consuming and costly. Because of this, the scope of Fishkin’s strategy is rather limited within the population. Deliberative Polling maybe effective at raising the standard of deliberation, but it only does so for a small subset of the population.
Second, this process is voluntary. The process is effective for those who chose to participate. However, one cannot be forced to engage in this educational dialogue and thus creates another limit on the Deliberative Polling process.
I didn’t think about your point that the process is voluntary. It is definitely a valid point to make because by choosing to participate, this could introduce some sample bias. The people participating may be people who are in general more open minded and open to having their beliefs and opinions challenged.
I definitely agree that the time and financial commitments necessary to thoroughly conduct Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process, does reduce its practicality. For smaller communities and public organizations, it is doubtful that they would have the resources to use this method. I also agree that the voluntary aspect of the process can cause some obstacles. People who agreed to attend may not feel comfortable once present.
Corbin, you’re right. It is voluntary, so there are always some people who will chose to participate (the “passionate participants” that always seem to attend these meetings). But the time constraint is also exclusionary: realistically, how many working class people will have time to regularly attend these deliberative polling hearings?
I would like to add few negative points about deliberative polling. Any good initiative can be tampered if there are loopholes. I find the process of selecting randomly the participants for the final event to be one place which can be tempered with. The final outcome can be channeled to one biased direction if sample participants are selected in a biased manner. How decision makers can be involved and be made obliged and enforced to the final decision outcome is something worth more research. There can be situation where a solution can only be provided by an expert, knowledgeable and experienced individual which may not be achieved by the accumulated wisdom of the public. This is also not clear how experts from the same field can be involved in the process.
Deliberative polling is definitely an interesting approach to a public hearing. As we have said before in class, and informed and active public is a key element of having a successful democracy. That said, I think one of the most important elements of this kind of polling is that it provides both balanced briefing materials on the topics being discussed as well as data and information from experts and policy makers.
The main weakness of this method I think is the element of experimentation. The participants are polled before they receive the information and participate and they are polled again after. The results of the study are the changes in opinion of the participants, which apparently happen very often in these meetings. I think it is definitely interesting to learn that peoples’ opinions change after they are fully educated on a topic and have time to deliberate. I also think that this is an important takeaway from this deliberative polling method. However, I think data dissemination to the media should not just include these numeric results. Yes, it is interesting, but the most important part of the data is WHY the people changed their opinion.
I don’t think that education should be limited to one subset of the population – everyone should have access to the information provided in the briefing materials and the expert opinion (or at least a summary). In addition, there should be questions about why people changed their opinions – what were the most important things they discovered in the session? The focus needs to shift from an experiment a broader way of informing the public.
I think the Deliberative Polling is also a process of learning. Usually the citizens “ignores” the public affairs rationally, because they find the benefit cannot cover the cost if they try to learn the public issues by themselves in more depth. Therefore, most citizens only get to know the superficial features of a public issue, unless they can realize that such an issue has great impact on their own life. The Deliberative Polling provides a chance for them to have a better understanding of a particular issue, so such a change of their opinions before/after the polling is expected.
I like the points you brought about the Deliberative Polling process. As you mentioned, our class generally agrees that an informed population raises the public’s ability to deliberate on social matters. This process by Fishkill is supposed to do jus that.
But as you stated, it is interesting as to why the Deliberative Polling process does not ask questions about why individuals changed their opinions after the education seminar and group discussions. That would be a boon for Fishkill’s process if he were able to keep metric data as to why an individual may change their opinion before and after the process.
I really like that you brought up the importance of assessing the “why” behind people’s changed opinions. That aspect of the whole process didn’t even cross my mind when reading the materials. These deliberative processes involve real humans with real opinions that are not being given the respect they deserve when represented to the rest of the citizenry as just numerical data. Paying more attention to the “why” would also help us identify what can be modified about this process to make it more beneficial in the future.
I agree with you Katie. I think the change in results is important to recognize, but this information can easily overshadow the why behind it. You need to find out why people changed their minds, was it the expert advice? Did people think that this is what they were expected to do? We’re they persuaded by the other members of their small groups? These are important questions, they need to be answered before researchers can say that this polling process is having a vast impact on the way people are making decisions.
In my undergraduate career, I participated as a representative and class vice president within the Student Association. This organization was the student governing body; along with my fellow representatives, executive board members and committee members, we managed a 1.8 million dollar budget. The association consisted of three branches, executive, legislative and judicial; each week we would meet to discuss the reports of the three branches, attend to new business and address any concerns of the students and faculty.
Due to the large size of the association, we strictly followed Roberts Rules for conducting the meetings. Although these rules for deliberation were useful for keeping order and timely meetings, they were often limiting to the participants. Our meetings required student group members to attend, who were often intimidated by the rules of deliberation and shied away from participating in conversations. We would also find that those that were well versed in Roberts Rules tended to dominate the conversation and greatly impacted the perspectives and decisions of others.
Although as representatives, we acted in the best interest of the student population, I do not feel as though the association was effective in receiving meaningful guidance from the public. The association dealt heavily with the management of behavior and funding of student groups and therefore created a negative connotation about the association. These attitudes and stigmas towards the Student Association greatly impacted student participation and guidance for the organization. This also resulted in under representation of the students as not all available representative seats would be filled and those elected as representatives won their seats due to low voter turnout.
You articulated so well the limiting aspects of using Roberts Rules of Order during a meeting. When we did a mock deliberation in class, this was exactly how I felt as someone with no prior experience with Roberts Rules! It was very disheartening to feel as though I had an opinion worth sharing, but was too intimidated by the formal procedural guidelines of which I had no knowledge to actually participate, so I agree that although there are benefits to this method, it can also be very limiting.
Your post brings up some of the typical problem of public meetings. The first problem is the lack of attendance. Attending a public meeting is a time consuming cost that many of us do not want to take. Low voter turnout is partially attributed to the cost associated with voting, it would be interesting to see a statistic associated with public meetings, and I would imagine the results would be similar.
Another problem associated with meeting is the feeling of futility. In other words, those that attend the meeting believe that decisions have already been made, and they cannot affect the outcome. Personally, I feel there is a bit of truth to this sentiment, but it also explains why attendance is low, particularly in your case. This in turn creates an atmosphere that does not foster deliberation, and in effect leads to pointless meetings. Which is why I guess no one goes to public meetings in the first place.
Traditional public meetings can be tedious and unproductive at times, especially when the strict rules of order are followed. It makes sense that people would search for an alternative process, one that could possibly employ more efficient procedures and yield even better results. Fishkin’s Deliberative polling process is one I had never heard of and at first glance it seemed to be to be a strong adversary to the traditional public meeting and hearing process.
The briefing materials are a great aspect of Fishkin’s process which I feel traditional public meetings lack. As we’ve discussed, when people feel as though they are not knowledgeable on a topic it holds them back from participating and sharing their opinion. Fishkin’s process also was interesting to me because it brings members of the general public together with field experts, allowing them to engage with one another and learn facts that a normal citizen might otherwise not know and therefore allow them to make a better informed decision. It reminded me of a one of our past classes when we discussed what the best guarantee of good deliberation is, and this Deliberative Polling process seems to combine John Dewey’s informed citizenry argument with Walter Lippmann’s belief of leaving the decision making to the experts.
Although I liked how this process acknowledges the importance of allowing experts and citizens to participate in the deliberative process together, I felt as though I encountered many weaknesses with Fishkin’s process as described on the Center for Deliberative Democracy’s website. The small group discussions it mentions are led by trained moderators, which could possibly hinder the natural flow of deliberation more so than they would help it. I worry that these moderators would lead the discussions in a way that points them down a path that they may not have otherwise gone if left to develop naturally. On the flip side of that argument, this does seem like a much more organized method than traditional public hearings during which many people don’t get a chance to speak and there’s a risk of things getting chaotic and tangential without the targeted guidance that Fishkin’s method provides. Going back to weaknesses of the deliberative polling process, I was not comfortable with the fact that only “parts” of the events may be broadcast, and sometimes in “edited form.” The entire process itself is described as a social experiment. When decisions affecting the public are being made, it may be in everyone’s best interest to stick to a tried and true method that has been in use for centuries, rather than a relatively recently conjured up idea. In defense of the deliberative polling process I do think it’s important to recognize the dangers of the “rational ignorance” that plagues our citizenry. People don’t always know much about a topic, but think that they do, and this is where the danger lies. It is with these people that Fishkin’s method would be most beneficial because they need to be presented with educational materials even more than their fellow citizens who are aware of their lack of knowledge. When watching the video lecture, the America Speaks forum seemed to be extremely productive and efficient. So if it seems like I’ve gone back and forth about which method is the better one in my opinion…it’s because I really am conflicted and can’t come to a conclusion!
I agree with the points you made about this process bringing together the general public and experts and that having a trained expert moderate may hinder the flow of deliberations. People may feel intimated to participate in the group because of the expert and some participants might not feel confident because they are not as knowledgeable and don’t want to come across as such. I also think that if it is an issue that affects a high number of the general public, people will make an effort to educate themselves and presenting them with educational materials will really help the deliberative process be more productive. For example; the subway hike is a public policy issue that affects a lot of people so some will take the initiative to learn more and the educational materials will be useful whereas a clean-up after your dog issue really won’t get people as involved because not many people have dogs.
I also agree with your points that public meetings are tedious and unproductive, when Robert’s Rules of order are strictly enforced. While Fishkin’s Delibertiave Process appears to overcome some of the major flaws of traditional public meeting’s, it still has flaws in its own right. Fiskin’s method does an excellent job providing information and encouraging real debate on an issue, but it does not address the issue of low turnout. There is still going to be a selection bias, because participation will have to be voluntary. This means that the participants will likely be older or people with more time to spend.
Another problem with Fiskin’s process, which you point out, is the role of the moderator. I think this is a great idea, but I would imagine several people taking offense, at the notion that some “elite academic” has to oversee their discussion and guide it through. I would imagine the older male population would take particular issue with this. Overall Fiskin’s method is a great improvement over traditional public meeting because it attempts to solve the issue of rational ignorance, which as you mentioned, is one of the biggest dangers plaguing our citizenry.
Professor James S. Fishkin of Stanford University 1st described the concept in 1988. The Deliberative opinion poll is a type of opinion poll that incorporates the principle of Deliberative democracy (cdd.stanford.edu, 2015).
Citizens are not aware of the key public issues. Deliberative polling shows individual reactions on issues so it is a little reason of conducting Deliberative pool and invest time and efforts to collect information and coming to a judgment. It is a process to take an opinion and use in research in a constructive path and give the solution with a human interference (cdd.stanford.edu, 2015).
The Deliberative polling process starts with the problems, issues of a random representative sample of the citizens. This is selected for taking part in Deliberative polling process. In this process citizens are divided into small groups for discussion about the topics and final questionnaire is prepared by considering participants problems and opinion. The result is analyzed and declares through media after the event
Strengths
• Results can be declared in limited time frame.
• Promotes individual participation in a matter that affects them.
• Random sample helps to represent the problems and ideas of the community.
• Deliberative polling process gives fairness in the decision-making process.
• The results of this process are considered fair by the community.
• This process gives balance solution of all the issues.
Weaknesses
• This process needs more resources. For example time, money (space, consultant, broadcast fees).
• Selection of sample needs expert advice, knowledge.
If the sample is improper, it fails entire process of Deliberative polling.
• Assumes a linear process of decision making.
• It may possible that inclusiveness may complicate the process rather than solving issues
cdd.stanford.edu. (2015). Center For Deliberative Democracy. Retrieved October 18th, 2015, from http://cdd.stanford.edu/what-is-deliberative-polling/
The need for more resources is pivotal to getting this process to work. As I mentioned, it is time consuming so people may need an incentive to participate in this process. Additionally, space is important because you have to find a space that is conducive for all those partaking in this process. We won’t even talk about broadcast fees because I’m sure it’s a hefty sum.
While an undergraduate student, my college held a public forum to discuss homophobic messages that were left a student’s door. My perception of the gathering and forum was to encourage students to stand in solidarity against hate. Most students who spoke voiced their disbelief and were supportive to the student who was at the receiving end of the hateful message. The decision-makers were not using the forum to gather feedback from the student body but rather to show that other students were rightly outraged and so the matter could be put to rest. I don’t think the gathering was a success because they never did catch the culprit and there was an agenda. School officials could say there was a public forum in which they addressed the matter but it still didn’t solve the issue at hand which was that, hate speech was rampant and no one was being penalized for creating a hostile environment for other students.
The strength of the deliberative process is that it puts a human face to the polling process and gets people to participate in a forum on an issue they otherwise would not have known or cared about. There are several weaknesses of this process with the first being that it is time consuming( unless there is an incentive). Secondly, it may work in small communities but in populous cities, a sample size of 466 is really not a good representative. Additionally, what network will be broadcast this discussion? And even if it is televised, unless ratings were very strong, I doubt our rating hungry media will continue to broadcast these discussions.
i agree that In the Deliberative Poll, face to face deliberation is very effective for interaction but time range is is very short and limited. So, citizens sometimes unable to understand the important element of the issue.
1. I have not attended a public hearing before. However, I feel like I have experienced many transformations in my local community, of East Harlem, as of lately. At these times, I wished I was more informed of the decision beforehand, or that officials organized a public hearing so I could have the opportunity to voice my opinion as well as hear the opinions of my fellow community members. For instance, our local large scale supermarket has recently been sold and will be demolished and built into new housing establishments. Although we need additionally housing in my neighborhood, that supermarket is the only place we most people can access a variety of relatively fresh food that is reasonably priced. With the closer of this market, I do not know where most community members will purchase their groceries from moving forward. Although I do not think it would have made a difference, I think we should have been given a public hearing before the decision was finalized.
2. In terms of James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process, I believe that some strengths in this polling process are that people are chosen are representational of the population and this process gives people the chance to openly state their opinions. An initial decision is made based solely on their personal views. Then, with the guidance of experts, they are given the chance to make an informed decision. This is based on the new knowledge they have acquired. To me, it is important to hear both sides of an individual’s opinion, prior and post knowledge to make a decision. I believe it helps researchers see just how informed the average person is on these topics. Also, I think it is important that the information representatives receive are balances, so they can make an unbiased decision.
At the same time, some weaknesses of the Deliberative Polling process, are the high cost and amount of time consumed by the process. It requires a great deal of resources and human capital; so I am unsure how sustainable this process actually is in the long run.
You’re probably right that a public meeting wouldn’t have made a difference regarding the new housing, but I agree with you that a meeting still would have been beneficial. Although many members of the public may not agree with the decision, they can at least know that they were able to voice their opinion and their lawmakers took their views into account. That could hopefully create less hostility around the decision. Maybe if there were enough people against it, the lawmakers would consider changing their decision?
I agree with you about the downsides of the deliberative polling process. While it may produce effective results, it would definitely take a lot more money and time to get there then it would in a traditional meeting. In addition, trained moderators and experts are needed in order to run the meeting, which could make it more difficult to coordinate (and take more money in order to pay them.)
It is baffling to me that a developer would look at the main place to buy fresh food in a community and choose to destroy it. The additional housing/people that will now move to the area will no add more stress to the already limited food resources. I agree that your voices may have ultimately fallen on deaf ears, but people should have a right to speak out and raise concerns when their neighborhood is in danger of being turned into a food desert.
You gave a real life example which is your neighborhood situation. I agree with your idea the prior and post background knowledge is very crucial in deliberative poling process. Furthermore,the information representative need to be balanced neutral to make unbiased decisions .
You gave a real life example which is your neighborhood situation. I agree with your idea the prior and post background knowledge is very crucial in deliberative poling process. Furthermore,the information representative need to be balanced neutral to make unbiased decisions .
I think your mentioning about the local supermarket in your neighborhood is a perfect and simple example where those who hold powers to add or remove certain business from neighborhoods often ignore the community members that live in that neighborhoods. Just as you said, this then presents a problem for those who depends on that supermarket for fresh produce. Public meetings or even community meetings should’ve been conducted by the officials to better inform those who actually utilizes these services and hear what have to say about this sudden change.
James Fishkins’s Deliberative process Polling has major strengths and relatively few weaknesses compared to traditional public meetings and gearing. Traditional public meeting usually limit the deliberative process to a couple of minutes from the attendants, or a brief question and answer section. Many times, it is hard to convey a full idea in the allotted time, and there is hardly any time given to a formal in depth discussion of disagreements. In practice, most public meetings are places where people can complain about something and not have to engage with those they disagree with it.
James Fishkins Deliberative Process Polling improves public meeting by selecting a random representative sample on a particular issue, this ensures that all stakeholders’ viewpoints are heard. His model also ensures that after a preliminary poll, participants are subjected to balanced information, unlike public meetings where the information may be biased because of the setting or the public officials. The biggest improvement in the Fishkins model is small group discussion, headed by a trained moderator; this ensures that a genuine deliberative process takes place. Overall Fiskins model is a major improvement over traditional public meeting, but there are several potential flaws. Distributing unbiased information and finding unbiased moderators is the most important task, and it will most likely be questioned by the losing size of the debate.
In 2011, I testified at a hearing of the NYS Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research and Reapportionment (LATFOR), which is responsible for redrawing State Senate, State Assembly, and congressional districts every ten years after new census data is gathered. LATFOR is supposed to consider changes in population and demographics when adjusting district lines to make sure all districts have the same number of residents, and that minority groups are represented according to federal requirements.
Sadly, the LATFOR process is notoriously opaque and political, with the real decisions about boundaries being made in closed meetings in Albany between State Assembly Democrats and State Senate Republicans (the respective majorities). Everything is done to shore up incumbents and limit the potential for challengers in both primaries and general elections.
Despite this, LATFOR still conducts public hearings around the state where anyone can submit their thoughts to the official record, for LATFOR’s consideration. Speakers have to call at least a couple days in advance to receive a speaking time, and speakers must provide 9 copies of a written testimony before they can speak. When I spoke in 2011, the hearing ran from around 2PM to 10PM in Queens Borough Hall and hundreds of people spoke. In theory, the forum should’ve been a great opportunity for lawmakers to learn about diverse concerns and goals of communities all over the city with respect to their legislative districts. Every group you can think of was represented. But sadly, virtually of the testimony was ignored, and the whole exercise proved to be rather futile.
The lawmakers on the dais responded neither to polite and intelligent questions, or outrageous accusations and comments. At times only two members of the panel were actually present as the rest came and went. Ultimately, there was nothing terrible about the format of the forum itself, but the underlying dishonesty and futility of the process showed at every step. Lawmakers really didn’t care what people thought, and had no intention of taking our advice. For this reason, the LATFOR hearings were neither successful or effective.
Unfortunately, I believe this is a common occurrence in many settings that hold a public deliberation. Sometimes politicians and other legislators may hold these meetings in order to appease the public, not to actually consider the public’s opinion. I was shocked to hear that the committee members would actually get up and leave for extended periods of time. That seems like a slap in the face to those that attended the meeting.
Your experience with LATFOR seems like one of the main reasons that people have a distrust of the government. Citizens take time out of their busy schedules to follow the proper procedures in order to have their voice heard and the response is to basically ignore them. If the people are abiding by the speaking procedures that have been outlined for them, then it should be expected that the least the lawmakers can do is listen and acknowledge their opinions.
I really doubt the effectiveness of a public hearing lasting from 2pm to 10pm. It sounds like a “show” to me where the politicians want to sit on the stage and act that they are listening to (hundreds of) citizens’ opinions. In fact, they can just read the written testimonies submitted by the public in their offices. It can save a lot of time for not just the policy makers but also the public speakers.
My recommendation is that the policy makers can pick the most thoughtful testimonies in advance and then have a more meaningful discussion with the public speakers whose testimonies are picked. Other citizens are welcome to attend and can raise questions in a Q&A section.
I think that Fishkin’s deliberative polling process can many times be a good alternative to traditional deliberation. One positive aspect is that all participants become well informed about the issue at hand. It is impossible to have effective deliberation unless everyone has enough knowledge regarding the issue, and I would say that educating the public is this model’s strongest feature. At a traditional meeting, people who show up are concerned about the issue, but may not have enough information in order to make an informed decision about what course of action should be taken. If those people are further educated about the topic, they can feel more confident about participating in the deliberative process, whereas before, they may have just sat and listened.
Another positive aspect about this model is that a sample that is representative of the population is asked to participate. This is important because those who show up to a traditional public meeting are not always representative of the population as a whole. A traditional meeting could easily be dominated by one side, allowing for ineffective deliberation. The conclusion of the meeting could be very different from what it would have been had both sides been more equally represented.
One negative aspect is that, while many people are polled, only some are asked to participate in the meeting. While it may be true that the sample chosen is representative of the public, many people could feel like their voices and views aren’t being heard because they were not asked to attend the meeting. One of the main goals of a public meeting is to give anyone who wants the ability to voice their opinion. I could see many members of the public being unsupportive of this model because they feel they are being silenced. While having a representative sample can be very beneficial, it certainly has a negative side as well.
You made a good point that the randomly selected sample size may not necessary represent a majority. it is quite hard to use the result from such a small group and to assume that it can somehow represent the opinions of a bigger population. However, this is also one of the strength of Fishkin’s approach. Which you also touched upon. It is tricky to really point out the strength and weakness because in many ways, the strengths of this process is also its weakness.
In theory James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process is a great way to capture the average citizens opinion, but there may be some complications that lower its accuracy. While it is great that the initial poll is sent out to many people, very few seem to respond. The reading stated that weekend samples can reach has high as 446 people, but traditionally sample sizes of the population are most accurate at 1000 people or more.
It is also possible that the people who agree to attend the weekend sample all have something in common. For example, citizens without children may have more weekend availability than those with children and therefore more likely to attend the sample. If very similar people are attending these meetings, than it is not a true picture of what the population is feeling.
The last public meeting that I attended was in my hometown and I fully admit that I went home for it because I knew it was going to be a spectacle. The mayor had been under fire for quite some time due to allegations of favoritism and awarding no-contract bids in secret to his friends. He had previously been able to skirt any sort of punishment because even though two members of the town board despised him the other two members were his wife and his best friend and in cases of split decisions the mayor served as the tie breaking vote. The whole thing boiled over at a town meeting following the mayors latest arrest with wide spread calls for him to resign which he announced in the newspaper he would no be doing. The town meeting was unlike anything I have seen and I’m pretty sure it broke every one of Robert’s rules. There was chaotic shouting, people interrupting, chants/cursing from the crowd, and multiple threats to shut the meeting down. Everyone in the room was angry and nobody had any idea what was going on. The meeting eventually ended with nothing resolved and the board members being escorted out. I am pretty sure that almost anything else could have happened at the meeting and it would have been more effective in a deliberative way then what happened that night.
This story is unbelievable! Was the mayor ultimately forced to step down? I certainly hope so. As to the mechanics of the meeting, it sounds like it was a disaster. I’ve been to some rowdy meetings, especially around election time, but nothing on this scale. Considering the background you provided though, I wonder if the meeting was a sort of “success?” Since the meeting was procedurally controlled by the corrupt mayor, maybe the best thing the people could do was disrupt the board’s business? Sometimes disruption could be the goal in a public meeting, like a public filibuster.
I hope things were resolved eventually. Hopefully an incident such as this serves as a lesson. While I find Roberts rules of order to be too strict in some senses, especially for certain types of meetings, it sounds like this meeting could have benefited from some procedure. I think finding a balance between procedure and fluidity in a meeting is often key, and clearly this meeting was lacking all of this.
That is quite insane and in instances like that where there is political grid lock and corruption I hope that the other board members were able to bring the issues to a higher state level in order to get the mayor removed and locked up.
I imagine that situation brought hopelessness and severe amounts of distrust to the political process in your town. Must be like living in a third world country where the electorate has absolutely no say or any modes in which to change the processes.
For situations like this, hearings are not the best form due to the volatility of the situation and emotions involved among the different actors involved. In this case, the mayor has been caught in the act and with a biased hearing like this was, the mayor is definitely not going to get a fair hearing even though he should have the chance to prove his ability to preform the task entrusted to him as mayor.
Although Deliberative Polling is theoretically sound, the difference in changes in opinion may be affected by other variables external to the polling process. By leaving time between the original poll and the weekend of discussion, the researchers leave opportunity for outside variables to affect the sample’s opinions. Hence, it is difficult to say whether this process is actually stronger at informing the public than traditional public meetings and hearings. The researchers would need to give more attention to the time difference in polling and have a weekend meeting, so that outside influences may be minimized.
However, if we assume that the methodology of deliberative polling is both internally and externally valid and reliable, the strengths of such a process have the potential to outweigh those of traditional meetings and hearings. By intentionally providing information and access to citizens, citizens may be more informed and prepared for discussion. However, a good leader would still need to lead the discussion process. If a good leader doesn’t facilitate constructive debate, then such a process is just as ineffective as traditional meetings and public hearings.
I did a minor stint working for Code Enforcement in the Village of Port Chester and had the opportunity to attend a public hearing held by the Director of Code Enforcement to educate the public on the newly developed Fire Safety Program and its implementation within the village (mid 2010). Gastil’s main criticisms of the nature of public hearings are on point: 1) the meetings are not necessarily attended by a representation of the community but by the most passionate community members and 2) the meetings occurred well into the implementation of the process – well after the nature of the program was well established. In my opinion, its primary purpose was public relations management rather than as part of a feedback system to improve the program. It was more about bringing people in line with the program by convincing them of its effectiveness. There was no clear mechanism in place before this scheduled meeting to make sure the feedback received was in some form used to improve the program. Nor do I recall it being stated before or during the meeting that such feedback would be used to do so – meaning the public was never guaranteed that this was a dialogue that would contribute to the development of the program (which brings up issues of transparency). The meeting was structured in a way where the Director gave information about the program (i.e. its status, successes, and limitations, expectations) and then followed it by an informal Q&A session where those present could ask questions about the program or give feedback. But feedback was generally followed by counterpoints and rational. The meeting was primarily attended by a few senior citizens and the most locally active individuals who were normally part of Port Chester’s political theater (including local press). The main issue is that, unless a large portion of the Village shows up to the meeting, any concerns with the implementation of the program could be viewed as the concerns of a fringe group as opposed to legitimizing those concerns. Despite it not being the most progressive mechanism for true deliberation, I do believe that the Director genuinely intended to get feedback from the community (as opposed to holding the meeting solely to comply with regulatory processes). But for a representative group to show up to these meetings, the community needs to believe that they are generally part of the development and implementation process. That cannot happen if meetings/hearings are scheduled late in the process.
Regarding Fishkin’s deliberative polling process, I think its greatest strength is that it provides a medium for educating the public on important issues. Its weakness, or at least the limitation from the description on the website, is that there is no intrinsic mechanism to apply the new consensus reached into the policy development process. It takes away the agency of the public to come up with a solution and rather focuses on giving them information on solutions already developed as opposed to hearing how they would solve an issue. Additionally, it relies on taking several days from the participating public meaning that its not something people can regularly participate in and also probably excludes vulnerable communities from a real chance of participating (e.g. people who cannot afford to take time away from work do to job security issues, people with low literacy levels, etc). It may not be in the public’s best interest – even a public that’s being well informed – due to the costs and time it would take to implement this method of deliberation.
The approach of James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process is that it attempts to use public opinion research in a new way rather than the conventional way of public meetings and hearings. The process of Deliberative Polling involves choosing a baseline poll that is a representative sample of targeted issues. The sample is provided with a briefing about the topics. After reviewing and studying about the topic, representative groups have the opportunity to engage in conversations with experts who can further guide them in understanding a topic. This process seems very appealing, but there are strengths and weakness in this process.
The strength of this process is that it offers a portion of the uninformed public an opportunity to be involved in issues by engaging them in dialogues with competing experts and political leaders. Because in many ways, the best way to understand about an issue is to learn from experts. Once the uninformed public is able to further understand about a topic by talking with experts, the public is better informed and is able to make better judgements and even offer solutions.
The Weakness of this process is that it seems very time consuming and costly. Which many of the classmate seem to agree. One of the important element of this process is the these representative sample are volunteers, which means that there is no guarantee that many will show up. Also, two days seems quite a long time for gathered individuals to talk about a certain topic. Lastly, it is costly for the organization to hold the meetings and it is not clear that something will come out of it.
The representativeness of the sample is definitely an important point to bring up here. Those in charge of running this process have to be careful about how exactly the sample is drawn in order to ensure that they are truly a representation of the greater public. Any fault in conducting this process can ultimately render this alternative to the regular public forum moot.
I agree with the strengths and weaknesses you have pointed out. One of the best ways to become informed on a topic is to engage with it. Today, we often read headlines or agree with those people we have agreed with in the past in order to “inform” ourselves. Instead, taking the time to talk to experts and having a dialogue would better ensure the successful transfer of information. However, doing so is time consuming and costly, especially when there is a chance that a final outcome will not result.
In the first response, in is natural human reaction to consider the public as the right side and the authority to be the wrong aka abusive side. Personally I always find discussion regarding public vs. the authority to be biased. We always forget the fact that, even public can go wrong and more importantly, on a complicated issue, one experienced and involved individual’s opinion can be more reliable which might be against the public or the authority. Now the question remains, if the person is from the management or authority’s side, whether he is considered guilty if he speaks right which is against the public opinion. Same is true when the opposite situation occur. There are cases when public opinion can lack long term view and wisdom to come up with the right decision. My point is, the authority must not abuse their power to impose decision and the public should not be given the full freedom to make a decision. Only bridge can be an expert panel or individual drawn from the public and authority who can really make a good decision. If there are multiple best options, public can enjoy the full freedom to pick one. Proper deliberation is very important in a public hearing. I am going to share my experience about being present in public meeting where public opinion was wrong.
The meeting held few years back and it was about closing the local park after the sunset. The community leaders along with the representative of the authority were present in the meeting along with hundreds of local citizens. The agenda was well discussed among the people before coming to the meeting and everybody was furious about the decision. It seems that the decision was made beforehand by the decision makers and the meeting was merely a tool to justify that public opinion matters. Local people used to go for an evening walk in the park and also events was organized which lasted late hours. Most people reaction was based on the fact that they are going to miss the park’s late opening hour. The rage was clearly visible in the meeting when the public realized that they are informed late about this decision and it is already too late to organize rally or other mean to protest against the decision. Just for showing off, few of the present man and woman were given chance to speak which was interrupted regularly by the decision makers and the shortened if needed. The meeting scheduled was selected in an odd time where the outspoken, more educated and influential people could not come. Among the present audience were mostly senior people and young crowd who could not make a strong presence. At the end, against public opinion the decision was to close the park after sunset.
Two weeks later, the news spread that, the authority and the community funding was suffering to maintain the expense of the security guards, facilities and vehicle cost who were responsible for the park safety. And the surrounding area of the park was prone to illegal drug activities, and without security it would be vulnerable place for the local people. By anticipating more public rage, the authority hid the fact and imposed the decision autonomously. The idea was if the funding crisis was open before the decision, public would be more insistent on keeping the park open even without security on that moment’s spur. It happened before when members of the community volunteered for security which failed eventually leaving few nasty security incidences. But once the community came to know about the fact, they were pretty convinced that the decision to close the park after sunset was a good one. What a poor example of proper deliberation between the decision makers and the public!
I agree with you in that, when it comes to public forums, the experts and authorities involved should not abuse their power and rig the rules in their favor. However, I disagree with not letting the public have full freedom to make a decision, especially since this is in the context of a democratic society. The point of the public forum should be for the public at large to be informed through discussion about the issue at hand so that they can make the best decision out of a variety of choices. The focus should be on bettering the quality of the process of deliberation of the forum.
I believe that the use of the deliberative poll would prove to be far more helpful overall in comparison to your run-of-the-mill public forum in coming up with solutions. It seems well designed enough to make sure that a decision is made by a well informed representative group from the public at large.
However, it would take a large amount of resources, in terms of time, money, and space, to name a few, to use this alternate process frequently. Still, despite that, it is better than the ordinary public forum.
My first experience with a public meeting occurred in January of my senior year of high school. Known for our athleticism, our high school took sports very seriously, which meant training year round—this included my lacrosse team. However, when a new athletic director was hired, he sought to ban weekday morning practices during the winter, which was our off-season. Upon taking such action, student athletes, parents, coaches, and teachers filled the next school board meeting—a meeting most of us had never attended before and would never attend again.
A handful of student representatives, parents, and coaches were given opportunities to speak for a few minutes in the presence of the school board. Although we were doubtful that our 16 and 17-year-old voices would make much of a difference, we hoped that our overwhelming representation at the meeting, along with the support of our parents, would sway the school board to take action. And it did. Although the community did not partake in the vote, the board members voted in front of the attendees to reinstate morning practices.
I believe a number of factors contributed to our success. First, our town is very small and our parents are extremely involved in the everyday goings on and decision-making. If a parent is upset, the school board will hear about it. Second, sports are extremely important to our town. Many students go on to play sports in colleges, and we have a reputation for winning season after season. Third, the overwhelming presence of all types of community members at the board meeting demonstrated how strongly we felt about the topic, and that we would not simply roll over. And finally, although pressure is not always successful in a town such as mine where people can be unwilling to change their point of view, the fact that the board publicly voted (through hand raising) probably made a difference—considering the large number of people present at the meeting.
I feel like what happened to your town is a perfect example of how the American public should feel about all issues but of course that is just wishful thinking. When either the government or third party takes action against something that a whole town, state or nation is very passionate about you will see an immediate and coordinated response. Because your town was very much into sports, any action taken on the athletic side will cause a positive or negative reaction from the constituents whether it be the student athletes, parents, coaches, fans or faculty.
Now if we could get people to be as passionate about something like income inequality as much as they are about sports we could see some serious changes in our country. =)
The only “Public Hearing” I have been a part of was for the previous company that I worked for. The CEO wanted to get feed back from the company as a whole in regards to cross training members of different teams so that in case some people left the company, entire teams wouldn’t need to be retrained. We were brought into a conference room where he asked questions and people would voice their ideas and concerns. The meeting went somewhat smoothly but the lack of structure somewhat led to people going on tangents and discussing things that were not very pertinent.
All in all it was a success and two months later cross training seminars began.
The strengths of the deliberative poling is that it can give more qualitative data in regards to how the public feels and by randomly selecting the people you know the raw data will be strong.
However I feel like, by providing “balanced material” before the deliberation skews the data. If you want to know how the rest of the population feels then providing information to them on the topic, though will make them more informed, wont really give the broader picture.
James Fishkin’s Deliberative Polling process provides an alternative to the the traditional public meeting and hearing process by giving a small group but representative of the population, the chance to question the decision makers. This small group is further divided into smaller groups so that more concrete ideas are formed but also that all of the participants voices are heard. Not only are the participants voices heard, but also that they are more informed as they have been given information about the issue to make a more informed question or option to be present to the decision maker.
The draw back as with any process is how representative of the population are the people. Biases may play a role in how people are selected which could affect the result due to other people not having a say in the process of the formulation of ideas. The process is time consuming due to having to read the material, which in my mind, most people don’t have time for. For complex issues, just reading the material is not going to make them informed, so i would say that for certain issues, it may work, but not on all issues such as Banking or Healthcare.