Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T02:28:25.701Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Deliberative Agenda Setting: Piloting Reform of Direct Democracy in California

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2015

James Fishkin ,
Thad Kousser ,
Robert C. Luskin  and
Alice Siu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Can the people deliberate to set the agenda for direct democracy in large scale states? How might such an institution work? The 2011 California Deliberative Poll piloted a solution to this problem helping to produce proposals that went to the ballot and also to the legislature. The paper reports on how this pilot worked and what it suggests about a possible institution to solve the deliberative agenda setting problem. The legislative proposal passed the legislature but the ballot proposition (Prop 31) failed. However, we show that the proposals actually deliberated on by the people might well have passed if not encumbered by additional elements not deliberated on by the public that drew opposition. The paper ends with an outline of how the process of deliberative agenda setting for the initiative might work, vetting proposals once every two years that could get on the ballot for a greatly reduced cost in signature collections. Adding deliberation to the agenda setting process would allow for a thoughtful and informed public will formation to determine the agenda for direct democracy.

Type
Reflections
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 13 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 1030 - 1042
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Their thanks go to Lenny Mendonca, Jim Mayer and Zabrae Valentyne of California Forward and to Laurene Powell and Ann Doerr of the Emerson Collective for their roles in making this project happen. Thanks also to Nicolas Berggruen and Nathan Gardels of the Berggruen Institute. Larry Diamond, Jack Rakove, Jane Mansbridge, and Bruce Ackerman all offered helpful advice. Gaurav Sood and Nuri Kim gave invaluable help. Dan Werner, Executive Producer from MacNeil/Lehrer Productions, played an immense role, not only with a one-hour documentary about the project but in crucial event planning and organization. At various points, this article builds on the final report on the project available at the Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University (http://cdd.stanford.edu/2011/by-the-people-whats-next-california) (http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/california).

References

Bächtiger, André, Grönlund, Kimmo, and Setälä, Maija. 2014. Deliberative Mini-publics:. Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Ball, Molly. 2011. “Hey, Congress, Rick Perry Is Gunning for Your Livelihoods.” The Atlantic, November 15.Google Scholar
Berg, Larry L. and Holman, C. B.. 1989. “The Initiative Process and Its Declining Agenda-setting Value.” Law & Policy Volume 11(4): 451–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumenthal, Sidney. 1980. The Permanent Campaign. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Binder, Michael, Boudreau, Cheryl, and Kousser, Thad. 2011. “Shortcuts to Deliberation? How Cues Reshape the Role of Information in Direct Democracy Voting.” California Western Law Review 48(1): 97–128.Google Scholar
Bohman, J. and Rehg, W., eds. 1997. Deliberative Democracy: Essays on Reason and Politics. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bowler, Shaun and Donovan, Todd. 2013. “The Initiative Process.” In Politics in the American States, ed. Gray, Virginia, Hanson, Russell L., and Kousser, Thad. 10th ed.. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Broder, David S. 2000. Democracy Derailed: Initiative Campaigns and the Power of Money. New York: Harcourt.Google Scholar
Bryan, Frank M. 2004. Real Democracy the New England Town Meeting and How It Works. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Cronin, Thomas E. 1989. Direct Democracy: The Politics of Initiative, Referendum, and Recall. Lincoln: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahl, Robert A. 1989. Democracy and Its Critics. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Elster, J., ed. 1998. Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, James. 2009. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fishkin, James. 2013. “Deliberation by the People Themselves: Entry Points for the Public Voice.” Election Law Journal 12(4): 490–507.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, J. and Laslett, P., eds. 2003. Debating Deliberative Democracy. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishkin, James S., Luskin, Robert C., and Siu, Alice. 2014. “The EuroPolis Deliberative Poll.” European Union Politics 15: 311–27.Google Scholar
Fournier, Patrick, van der Kolk, Henk, Kenneth Cary, R., Blais, André, and Rose, Jonathan. 2011. When Citizens Decide: Lessons from Citizens’ Assemblies on Electoral Reform. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallup, George. 1939. Public Opinion in a Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Stafford Little Lectures.Google Scholar
Garrett, Elizabeth. 1999. “Money, Agenda Setting, and Direct Democracy.” Texas Law Review 77: 1845–90.Google Scholar
Gastil, John. 2000. By Popular Demand: Revitalizing Representative Democracy through Deliberative Elections. Berkeley and London: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, Mogens Herman 1991. Athenian Democracy in the Age of Demosthenes: Structure, Principles, and Ideology. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Harrison, A. R. W. 1955. “Law-Making at Athens at the End of the Fifth Century BC.” Journal of Hellenic Studies 75: 26–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” American Political Science Review 88(1): 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Luskin, Robert C., Fishkin, James, and Jowell, Roger. 2002. “Considered Opinions: Deliberative Polling in Britain.” British Journal of Political Science 32: 455–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manin, Bernard. 1997. The Principles of Representative Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mathews, Joe and Paul, Mark. 2010. California Crackup: How Reform Broke the Golden State and How We Can Fix It. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali. 2002. “The Deliberative Citizen: Theory and Evidence.” In Research in Micropolitics, vol. 6: Political Decision Making, Deliberation and Participation, ed. Delli Carpini, Michael, Huddy, Leonie, and Shapiro, Robert Y.. New York: Elsevier Press.Google Scholar
Meyers, John and Aliferis, Lisa. October 12, 2012. “Making Sense of the Very, Very Complicated Prop 31.” KQED Election 2012. Available at http://blogs.kqed.org/election2012/2012/10/12/analysis-prop-31-would-reform-governance-and-much-else/, accessed August 17, 2014.Google Scholar
Mishak, Michael J. 2011. “Make California Legislature Part-time, Poll Majority Says.” Los Angeles Times, July 20., http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/california-politics/2011/07/make-california-legislature-part-time-survey-says.html, accessed August 17, 2014.Google Scholar
National Conference of State Legislatures. 2010. “Paid vs. Volunteer Petitioners.” http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/paid-vs-volunteer-petitioners.aspx, accessed, December 2014.Google Scholar
Nicholson, Stephen P. 2008. “Direct Democracy and the Public Agenda: Ballot Initiatives and Public Beliefs about Important Problems.” In Direct Democracy's Impact on American Political Institutions, ed. Bowler, Shaun and Glazer, Amihai. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Ober, Josiah. 2008. Democracy and Knowledge Innovation and Learning in Classical Athens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Onishi, Norimishu. 2012. “California Ballot Initiatives, Born in Populism, Now Come From Billionaires.” New York Times, October 16. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/17/us/politics/california-ballot-initiatives-dominated-by-the-very-rich.html, accessed August 17, 2014.Google Scholar
Posner, Richard. 2003. Pragmatism and Democracy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1978. “Political Resource Allocation, Controlled Agendas, and the Status Quo.” Public Choice 33: 27–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romer, Thomas, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1979. “Bureaucrats versus Voters: On the Political Economy of Resource Allocation by Direct Democracy.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 93(4): 563–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Shawn W., ed. 2007. Deliberation, Participation and Democracy. New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumpeter, Joseph A. 1942. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Shapiro, Ian. 2003. The State of Democratic Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Smith, Graham. 2009. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinberg, Darrell. 2012. Speech at Sacramento Press Club, April 19, 2012. Transcript available at http://sd06.senate.ca.gov/sites/sd06.senate.ca.gov/files/2012-04-19%20Steinberg%20Sac%20Press%20Club%20speech%20transcript_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Warren, Mark and Pearse, Hillary. 2008. Designing Deliberative Democracy: The British Columbia Citizens' Assembly. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Fishkin supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Fishkin supplementary material(File)
File 25.4 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Fishkin supplementary material

Fishkin supplementary material 2

Download Fishkin supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 200.3 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Fishkin supplementary material

Fishkin supplementary material 1

Download Fishkin supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 200.3 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Fishkin supplementary material

Fishkin supplementary material 2

Download Fishkin supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 892 KB
Supplementary material: PDF

Fishkin supplementary material

Fishkin supplementary material 3

Download Fishkin supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 295.4 KB