James Fishkin's blog

James Clive Mathews asks why we have the small countries represented. He points out, correctly, that a simple random sample of the EU as a whole might easily leave out the small countries. And he asks, if we are really presenting this as a scientific sample of Europe how can we adjust the sample to ensure representation of the small countries? The answer turns on how we represent the small countries. By employing stratified random sampling (rather than simple random sampling) we can ensure representation of the small countries and, in theory, actually reduce sampling error. If we have separate strata that are mutually exclusive (in this case separate countries) and we randomly sample from each, we can actually produce a more representative sample of the overall population.

James Clive Mathews has taken issue with the representativeness of the sample. In response to his query, we released the time 1 opinions of the 3,500. Our policy is never to do so prior to a Deliberative Poll because publishing poll results may influence the deliberation. But afterwards there is no harm. The time 1 results are just another poll. The only way to compare statistically the answers to questions is to compare the means. But means put on a 0 to 1 scale are incomprehensible to journalists and the public so we released percentage breakdowns instead. Mathews has conducted his comparison by picking out parts of questions (in fact, parts of one selected question only). When we compared the means for all the questions between the 3,500 and the 362, we found that the substantive differences were only 4% of what they could possibly have been. Even a cursory comparison of the answers will show that the differences are mostly small between the 3,500 and the 362.

According to some scholars, the European Wide Public Sphere is a phantasm - impossible, misconceived and misguided. It is hard to imagine and only for utopian speculation. Now, however, we have seen and heard it. And for those who were not in the room Oct 12-14, you can go to the website and play the video and see and hear what it would look like.

The day before the Tomorrow's Europe deliberative poll kicks off, materminds Professor James Fishkin and Professor Robert Luskin give a few more details about the practicalities:

A basic sampling issue is whether to try to represent the population of every individual member state or the population of Europe as a whole.

The day before the Tomorrow's Europe deliberative poll kicks off, materminds Professor James Fishkin and Professor Robert Luskin clarify deliberative polling's claims to representativeness:

To help establish that the sample is indeed representative, the characteristics and pre-deliberation views and knowledge of the participants (the initial interviewees who attend the deliberations) are compared with those of the non-participants (the initial interviewees who do not attend).

The day before the Tomorrow's Europe deliberative poll kicks off, materminds Professor James Fishkin and Professor Robert Luskin clarify what deliberative polling is all about:

A Deliberative Poll (DP) surveys a scientific, random sample before and after it has deliberated one or more policy issues or electoral choices.

Following the first of Professor Lupia's posts on the problems of deliberative polls, the two masterminds of the deliberative polling method, Professor James Fishkin of Stanford and Professor Robert Luskin of the University of Texas, explain a bit more about the results and methodology of their approach: It is true that studies of "deliberation" have produced some variety of results - unsurprisingly, given the considerable variety in definitions and operationalizations underlying them.

The full, unedited text of the response of Professors Fishkin and Luskin to the criticisms of Professor Lupia: 

Skip Lupia has staked a good part of his career on the view that, by and large, ordinary citizens successfully use cognitive short cuts and simple cues to reach the same policy views and electoral choices they would reach if they knew and thought a lot more about them--and that deliberation should therefore make little difference.  The evidence from Deliberative Polling challenges a great deal of his past work.  

Following the first of Professor Lupia's posts on the problems of deliberative polls, the two masterminds of the deliberative polling method, Professor James Fishkin of Stanford and Professor Robert Luskin of the University of Texas, respond to his accusations on the issue of transparency:

Professor James Fishkin of Stanford University, the mastermind of deliberative polling, kicks off dLiberation's coverage with a look at the thinking behind deliberative democracy, and the ways in which such a method of public consultation may be able to help the European Union both address its democratic deficit and its current ongoing stagnation:

There is a basic, and recurring problem of public consultation-if we ask elites, we have deliberation without political equality. If we ask the people directly, we can have political equality but usually without deliberation. Can we have both... can we have a method that represents everyone under conditions where the people can become informed and can think through difficult issues?