Last week, over 170 Pennsylvania voters gathered in Philadelphia to engage with elected leaders about the policies they support.
This event, termed ‘Deliberative Polling’, allowed participants to express their views and, interestingly, also challenged some of them to reconsider their political beliefs.
Among those in attendance was Meredith Robinson-Yakelis, a teacher from York County, who sought to network and share her insights with lawmakers.
‘I’d hoped that perhaps some of the higher-up elected officials might be listening to what we’re saying and have to offer as our ideas,’ she expressed.
Her hopes were not misplaced, as the event attracted a bipartisan group of VIPs including Governor Josh Shapiro, House Speaker Joanna McClinton, and Republican Senator Joe Picozzi.
Although a staffer from Senator Doug Mastriano’s office was slated to attend, they canceled at the last moment.
The primary purpose of these officials’ attendance was to respond to the inquiries of participants regarding public policy rather than deliver speeches.
Developed by Stanford University political science professor James Fishkin, Deliberative Polling aims to enhance the effectiveness with which elected officials reflect the views of their constituents.
‘In a democracy, aren’t we supposed to connect the will of the people with actual legislative actions?’ Fishkin asked.
Over the course of three days filled with small group discussions, Q&A sessions with elected leaders, and expert panels, participants engaged deeply in issues ranging from education and health care to immigration, foreign policy, and election law.
After an 11-hour program spanning Friday and Saturday, attendees concluded the event by responding to a survey about the topics they had studied.
Fishkin’s team is currently analyzing the survey data and intends to release the findings, along with an academic write-up of the methodology, in the coming weeks.
This analysis will ideally reveal the policy preferences of a representative sample of informed Pennsylvania voters.
Historically, Fishkin’s model has instigated impactful changes.
For example, in the late 1990s, it was instrumental in guiding Texas energy companies towards renewable energy sources such as wind farms.
In 2017, Mongolia enacted a law requiring deliberative polling for constitutional amendments, leading to the passage of significant reforms.
The potential impact of Pennsylvania’s deliberative poll on legislative change remains to be seen, contingent on how state officials choose to respond to the findings.
Fishkin emphasizes that his role only involves presenting the results and making the data publicly accessible.
Some participants arrived with specific policy agendas; Glenda Tobin, a mother from York, expressed the need for better healthcare access, particularly emphasizing the importance of Medicaid and Medicare funding.
The financial backer and organizer of the project, a group called Helena, also clarified that they would not lobby for or pressure lawmakers to act based on the poll’s findings.
CEO Henry Elkus confirmed that Helena’s purpose was to facilitate the event and encourage lawmakers to engage with the process without imposing any influence on outcomes.
Elkus noted, ‘The ultimate goal is to point to a bill or action taken at a state or federal level and say, ‘Hey, that was influenced by a representative sample coming together.’
Helena initially launched nationwide deliberative forums under the banner America In One Room in 2019, and last weekend’s gathering marked their first state-level event.
Fishkin acknowledged that America In One Room has become a benchmark in deliberative polling.
Helena’s involvement included raising funds to support the deliberative polls and managing logistics, a process made possible within just two months due to a foundation’s investment in the range of low seven figures.
While Elkus could not disclose the foundation’s name or the exact funding amount, he stipulated that neither Helena nor the funder had any editorial control over the event.
The funds were utilized to identify participants, arrange travel and accommodations, compensate for missed work, pay experts, and analyze data.
During the forum, several participants underwent significant shifts in their political perspectives.
Katya Madison, a stay-at-home mom identifying as a ‘strong conservative’, reported a transformation in her views over the weekend.
Madison described the phenomenon of ‘depolarization’, which involves individuals softening their alignment with a single political or social group while becoming more open to diverse ideas.
‘We had a lot of people in my group from different backgrounds, and it surprised me how much we actually agreed on,’ she recounted.
This outcome aligns with Fishkin’s observations from past deliberative forums, which indicate that moderated, fact-based discussions among diverse participants tend to reduce biases against those holding opposing views.
Notably, some of Fishkin’s studies have indicated that these shifts in political stance can endure for at least a year, thereby influencing participants’ voting behavior.
Madison arrived at the forum with preconceived notions about people on the political left, largely shaped by her college experiences and reinforced by figures whose opinions she respected.
However, her interactions at the forum prompted her to reassess these views.
‘There were motivations I attributed to the other side that aren’t necessarily true,’ she acknowledged.
Although some errors were noted in the 60-page briefing document prepared by Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab, Fishkin maintained that the overall integrity of the deliberative process remained intact.
Several inaccuracies were highlighted by WITF, notably about Pennsylvania’s legislative initiatives and programs.
He acknowledged specific mistakes, such as incorrectly stating that the Pennsylvania Promise initiative was launched last year, when in fact it failed to progress through the legislature.
The document also mistakenly claimed the existence of a Pennsylvania Office of New Americans.
Robinson-Yakelis indicated that while she noticed a few errors during her discussion sessions, they did not deter the group’s conversations, which remained focused on the legislation’s main ideas rather than operational details.
The briefing document was developed with input from research assistants, expert reviews, and an AI-driven language simplification process, which contributed to the errors.
Fishkin has pledged to review the document creation process to prevent similar inaccuracies in the future.
In conclusion, the deliberative polling initiative in Pennsylvania represents a significant attempt to bridge the gap between policymakers and the constituents they serve.
With the results pending, the impact of this engagement on future legislative actions remains an open and promising question.
image source from：https://lancasteronline.com/news/175-pennsylvanians-meet-in-philadelphia-with-goal-to-guide-state-policy/article_a649f885-01d8-420f-867e-6e6e11a78828.html
