Fishkin part 1: Thinking democracy and Fishkin's method

01 Introduction: why must the thinking people be brought back?

Modern democracies are increasingly met with the criticism that the mechanisms of representative government and of opinion formation cannot keep pace with social complexity and the explosion of information. Weak institutional feedback, polarisation and the divisiveness of political discourse are all problems that traditional democratic procedures struggle to handle. In this context it is especially timely to pose the question: how can the "thinking people" be brought back into decision-making — that is, how can it be that citizens are not merely passive voters but actually form their opinions on a sound basis?

James S. Fishkin, an American political scientist and communication theorist, became known as one of the greatest names in deliberative democracy and in what is called deliberative polling (Deliberative Polling®). His aim is not merely theoretical model-building but the working out of institutional innovations capable of restoring the quality of democratic decision-making — the weighing of arguments, informedness, well-informed opinion formation — to political practice (Fishkin, 2018).

According to Fishkin, in elected democracies the key is not simply the question of participation or of elections, but how considered, well-founded and argument-driven citizens' opinions are. The essence of deliberative polling is that a representative sample is selected at random, participants are then given balanced background materials presenting the arguments of several sides, they take part in moderated debates, and finally the same questions are put to them again, so that it becomes visible how opinions shift under the effect of deliberation. This method combines representativeness with the formation of reflective opinion, and in Fishkin's view it thereby improves the quality of democratic opinion formation (Fishkin, 2018; Stanford University, n.d.-a).

The central claim of his work is that in modern democracies the greatest challenge is not the act of voting but the knowledge and reasoning on which voters' decisions rest. The incorporation of deliberative mechanisms therefore improves not only the quantity of participation but also its quality. With this, Fishkin marked out a direction of reform that measures the legitimacy of democracy not in the counting up of opinions but in how considered they are (Fishkin, 2018).

The experiments he has led — such as America in One Room (2019) or the Chinese Zeguo project launched in 2005 — have demonstrated, under a variety of conditions, the possibilities of informed citizen deliberation. In the American experiment, political polarisation also decreased. Fishkin is thus not only one of the most important theorists of deliberative democracy but also its most practical innovator: his work builds a bridge between political theory and experimental social science, and can offer a point of reference for contemporary urban and municipal participation models, including the community assembly initiatives in Hungary (Fishkin et al., 2021; Fishkin et al., 2010).

02 The theoretical foundations of participatory and deliberative democracy

The concept of participation in political science

In political science the concept of participation is many-sided and contested. It denotes at once citizens' active presence, their intervention and their intention to exert influence on political processes — precisely what "active participation" is, what forms it takes and under what conditions it can be interpreted is already a subject of theoretical debate. According to the classic definition, political participation is any voluntary activity whose aim is to influence public affairs directly or indirectly. This is not merely voting: it also includes campaign work, signing a petition, a letter of complaint, protest, collecting signatures, or taking part in an opinion poll (Teorell, 2006).

An important dimension is the capacity and motivation for participation, that is, how far the citizen feels able to influence the processes. The OECD paper entitled Political Efficacy and Participation analyses precisely how far people trust in their ability to have a say, and what effect this has on their actual participation. On the whole, the concept of participation is not static but multidimensional: it comprises the forms of active intervention, but also takes into account the motivational, communicative and institutional conditions that determine who can really take part, and to what extent. This provides the basis for understanding why deliberative mechanisms are needed — mechanisms that improve not only the opportunity for participation but also its quality (Prats and Meunier, 2021).

The role of deliberation in decision-making

Deliberation — the clash and weighing of arguments, opinions and justifications — occupies a central place in the theory of deliberative democracy. While the traditional model emphasises the aggregation of preferences (election, voting), the deliberative approach holds that a just and legitimate decision requires more than counting the positions: those positions must be formed in a considered way, with mutually contestable arguments. Deliberative procedures are not merely "conversations" but timed, moderated, structured debates in which participants strive to give one another intelligible reasons and to revise their views in the light of shared reasoning (Fishkin, 2018).

The legitimating role of deliberation lies in the fact that a decision becomes truly acceptable when it has been shaped not by hidden power relations or manipulative communication but by transparent arguments. The legitimacy of democracy is thus not merely the will of the majority but a decision based on argument and reflection. At the same time, deliberation is no magic cure: critics point out that if great social inequalities divide the participants, deliberation can become a deceptive illusion that masks the real asymmetries of power. The role of deliberation is therefore many-sided: a quality-improving mechanism that supports higher-standard decisions; a legitimation component that strengthens the acceptance of a decision; and a link between citizens and institutional decision-makers (Siu, 2017; OECD, 2020).

03 The life and work of James S. Fishkin

Biography

Fishkin earned a B.A. from Yale College in 1970, magna cum laude, in political science and philosophy. He later took a doctorate in political science at Yale (1975, with distinction), and in 1976 received a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Cambridge. He began his career at Yale University: from 1975 to 1979 he was Assistant Professor of Political Science, and from 1979 to 1984 Associate Professor. He then taught as a professor at the University of Texas at Austin, where he held endowed chairs, such as the Darrell K. Royal Regents Chair in Ethics and American Society (Fishkin, n.d.).

From September 2003 Fishkin has been a professor at Stanford University, holder of the Janet M. Peck Chair in International Communication, and director of the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab. His best-known concept is Deliberative Polling®, with the help of which more than 100 deliberative polls have been carried out worldwide, in roughly 28 countries — among them the United States, China, Uganda, Brazil and Bulgaria. In these experiments citizens are drawn into the debates in a representative way, provided with information, and then their change of opinion is measured — thus testing what public opinion would be if people could think about the questions at greater length and more thoroughly (Stanford University, n.d.-b).

Principal works

The central pillars of Fishkin's life's work are the books and studies that not only provide theoretical frameworks for deliberative democracy but also offer methodological and practical recommendations for reform. His most important books are: Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform (1991), The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy (1995), Deliberation Day (together with Bruce Ackerman, 2004), When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (2009) and Democracy When the People Are Thinking: Revitalizing Our Politics Through Public Deliberation (2018) (Fishkin, 1991; Fishkin, 1995; Ackerman and Fishkin, 2004; Fishkin, 2009; Fishkin, 2018).

Democracy When the People Are Thinking (2018) examines why today's democratic systems work well or badly from the standpoint of the ideal of the "thinking people". The work resolves the dilemma in a nuanced way: should we hear the people — who sometimes possess little information — or trust the experts and the "elite", which in turn can wrench decision-making out of the hands of the citizens? Fishkin's proposal is to join these two poles through institutionalised deliberative forums. When the People Speak (2009) sets theoretical designs against practical application, and reports on how deliberation projects work in the United States, China, Great Britain, Denmark, Italy, Bulgaria and elsewhere — for example with an effect in Texas on renewable-energy policy, and in China on wastewater-treatment investments. Fishkin's principal works thus operate together on three levels: theoretical grounding, practical application with case studies, and methodological innovation (Fishkin, 2009; Fishkin, 2018).

Scholarly and practical impact

Fishkin's greatest scholarly contribution is the development and dissemination of the methodology of deliberative polling (Deliberative Polling®). His scholarly impact lies in the fact that he brought a methodological innovation to political science and underpinned his theoretical claims with empirical experiments. His practical impact can be measured in the fact that his deliberative procedures have also been applied in real political contexts and have brought about changes in public policy, and even in the structure of public opinion. Fishkin is thus at once a scholar and a reformer: his work is a bridge between democratic theory and democratic practice (Fishkin, 2009; OECD, 2020).

04 Deliberative Polling® as the principal innovation

The steps of the method

The aim of Deliberative Polling® is to measure, in a representative way, what a community would think if its citizens had more information and more opportunity for debate. The method combines the advantages of the usual opinion poll with those of deliberation, and consists of the following main steps (Stanford University, n.d.-a).

The first step is the selection of a representative sample at national or local level — with a selection adjusted by age, sex, geographical residence and level of education. With this sample the first questionnaire (baseline) is administered, which touches on the same topics that later form the subject of the deliberation.

In the second step, balanced background materials, often edited by experts, are sent to the participants, presenting the main alternatives, the focal points of the arguments and counter-arguments, the statistics and the possible consequences. These serve to ensure that participants arrive at the debate not with prejudices but with the possibility of forming an informed position; the materials may also be made public (Stanford University, n.d.-a).

The third step is face-to-face deliberation, typically at a one- or multi-day (often weekend) event:

• Small-group discussions: participants debate in randomly formed small groups, led by a moderator, so that everyone can speak and the debates remain balanced.
• Plenary sessions: after the small-group discussions, expert panel discussions take place before the whole community, where one can ask questions and respond to each other's viewpoints.
• The role of the moderator is to minimise bias — not to lead or to influence, but only to assist the debate and to safeguard freedom of argument (Fishkin and Luskin, 2005; Stanford University, n.d.-a).

In the fourth step the participants complete the same questionnaire again, so that it can be measured how many revised their positions and in what direction. The post-measurement records the participants' positions at the close of the deliberation; studying lasting effects requires further follow-up. Many projects also use an experimental design: one group takes part in deliberation, a control group does not, so that the effects can be compared (Stanford University, n.d.-a; Fishkin et al., 2021).

The final step is the publication of the results and — where possible — their integration into public-policy decision-making. It is important that the process be transparent: its inputs, debates and outputs are publicly accessible, since deliberation is not a closed-door discourse (OECD, 2020).

Sources

• Ackerman, B. and Fishkin, J. S. (2004): Deliberation Day. Yale University Press.
• Fishkin, J. S. (1991): Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. Yale University Press.
• Fishkin, J. S. (1995): The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy. Yale University Press.
• Fishkin, J. S. (2009): When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford University Press.
• Fishkin, J. S. (2018): Democracy When the People Are Thinking: Revitalizing Our Politics Through Public Deliberation. Oxford University Press.
• Fishkin, J. S. (n.d.): Curriculum Vitae of James S. Fishkin. Stanford University.
• Fishkin, J. S. and Luskin, R. C. (2005): Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion. Acta Politica, 40, 284–298.
• Fishkin, J. S., He, B., Luskin, R. C. and Siu, A. (2010): Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China. British Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 435–448.
• Fishkin, J. S., Siu, A., Diamond, L. and Bradburn, N. (2021): Is Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization? Reflections on “America in One Room”. American Political Science Review, 115(4), 1464–1481.
• OECD (2020): Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. OECD Publishing.
• Prats, M. and Meunier, A. (2021): Political Efficacy and Participation: An Empirical Analysis in European Countries. OECD Working Papers on Public Governance, 46. OECD Publishing.
• Siu, A. (2017): Deliberation & the Challenge of Inequality. Dædalus, 146(3), 119–128.
• Stanford University (n.d.-a): What Is Deliberative Polling®? Deliberative Democracy Lab.
• Stanford University (n.d.-b): James Fishkin. Department of Political Science.
• Teorell, J. (2006): Political Participation and Three Theories of Democracy: A Research Inventory and Agenda. European Journal of Political Research, 45(5), 787–810.