LESSONS FROM AMERICA S EXPERIMENTS IN DELIBERATION. Thad Kousser, Flinders University and UC San Diego

Transcription

1 LESSONS FROM AMERICA S EXPERIMENTS IN DELIBERATION Thad Kousser, Flinders University and UC San Diego

2 Deliberative Democracy Ideal? In Athens in 507 B.C., Cleisthenes introduced the reform of demokratia, the rule of the people Any of 40,000 citizens could attend the 40 yearly meetings of the ekklesia at the Pnyx

3 Deliberative Democracy Roots Since the 1700s, New England town hall meetings have been held annually to craft budgets

4 Deliberative Democracy Today?

5 Deliberating On Constitutional Reform With California in crisis in 2010, there were widespread calls for a citizens constitutional convention Hard to use polls Without government backing, deliberative poll on reform held in 2011

6 Design Choice #1: Who Participates? Different from the citizen jury model reach the mini-public ideal through a large, representative sample realistic for a weekend s involvement, but limits on length Emphasis is on making participation rate as high as possible for those invited Rates approaching 100% get you close to the true random sample Rates approaching 0% put you back in world of self-selection 412 of the 435 who committed actually attended the poll Up to ten call-backs, all travel funded Phone survey of a comparison group found similar attitudes and demographics

7 Design Choice #1: Who Participates? Poll Participants California Voters Other Party 5% No Party 19% Republican 29% Other Party 3% No Party 21% Republican 28% Democrat 47% Democrat 48%

8 Design Choice #1: Who Participates?

9 Design Choice #1 Lessons Devoting time and energy to working one sample is the best way to make that sample representative This requires major resources

10 Design Choice #2: What s on Agenda? PROPOSALS FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN DELIBERATIVE POLL TAXATION Problems that the reforms in this section are perceived to address: T1- State revenue does not match the level of government services the state currently provides. T2- California's tax revenues are too volatile. T3- California's tax structure is unfair, either in terms of who is taxed or what is taxed. T4- California's tax structure is too complicated. T5- Control/Responsibility/accountability should be more locally based. T6- The percentage of voters or legislators required to support a policy in order to enact it should be changed. Expand sales tax to include services -- (proposed with or without reduction of overall tax rate) Flatten income tax rates Implement a Business Net Receipts Tax (BNRT) model in place of current corporate taxation structure. Policy? Policy? Policy? revenue; volatile; unfair; complicated volatile; unfair; complicated revenue; volatile; unfair CA currently does not tax services. Could simply apply sales tax to services and generate greater revenue, OR add services while reducing overall sales tax rate to net same yield as current law. Would smooth out annual tax revenues by relying less on the most volatile higher incomes. Considered regressive. Conceptually taxes the value a business adds to its production in CA; approximates the benefits of services/programs used by a business Revise Proposition 13: Implement "split roll" taxation of property Policy? revenue; unfair Maintain homeowner values per Prop 13, but allow for more regular reassessment of value of commercial property, (presumably) raising property taxes for large corporations that hold onto property forever.

11 Design Choice #2: What s on Agenda? Began by canvassing political reform groups left, right, and center to hear their agendas 141 ideas. Uh-oh! Created advisory board with political, geographic, and demographic breadth Early buy-in was important Series of four conference calls, each lasting three hours Online voting for priorities after each This takes resources, nascent interest Finalized a list of 30 proposed reforms

12 Design Choice #2: Lessons Agenda setting by committee puts priorities of all committee members on the agenda Broad outreach gets you broad buy-in

13 Design Choice #3: Presenting Information Goal: The knowledge of experts, presented to a normal people Challenges: Experts don t speak the language of normal people Experts have viewpoints Expertise can intimidate

14 Design Choice #3: Presenting Information Process (background materials) Begin with professors or agency leaders writing Peer review Journalists rewrite More review Process (at the event) Expert panels between small-group deliberations Acknowledge conflicts, balance panels Only there to answer questions asked by panels

15

16 Design Choice #3: Presenting Information Participants can take in more information than you might expect Evidence of gains Keeping it approachable was the key Sacrifice of complexity?

17 Design Choice #4: Facilitator Role

18 Design Choice #5: What Happens Next?

19 Design Choice #5 Lessons Keep expectations clear Synchronize policy questions in deliberation with the way they will be asked in political sphere Recognize the difference between mini-publics and the public