Upload
alexia-evans
View
220
Download
5
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Making Initiative Elections More DeliberativeA Summary of Research on the Citizens’ Initiative Review
John GastilProfessor of Comm. Arts & Sciences and Political ScienceDirector of the McCourtney Institute for DemocracyPennsylvania State University
Presentation at the King County Bar Assn.April 24, 2014
The research presented in this report was supported by the National Science Foundation NSF Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences’ Political Science Program 2010 Award and Decision, Risk, and Management Sciences Program 2014 Award and by funding from the University of Washington Royalty Research Fund, the Kettering Foundation and The Pennsylvania State University Social Science Research Institute and McCourtney Institute for Democracy. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of NSF, the Kettering Foundation, or any university partners.
Research collaborators and CIR designers• Katie Knobloch (Colorado State U.), Co-Principal Investigator• Penn State University
Robert Richards: observation, transcript coding, surveyDavid Brinker: survey design and analysisGuoray Cai and Jessica Kropczynski: observation and analysis
• Other academic collaboratorsLauren Archer and Traci Feller (U. Washington), Justin Reedy (Oklahoma U.), Mark Henkels (Western Oregon U.), Katherine Cramer (U. Wisconsin), Laura Black (Ohio U.), Genevieve Fuji-Johnson (U. British Columbia), Jennifer Ervin (U. Arizona), Lilach Nir (Hebrew U.),Ekaterina Lukianova (St. Petersburg State U.)
• Civic reformersNed Crosby, Jefferson Center for New Democratic ProcessesTyrone Reitman, Healthy Democracy
Overview
• The idea of deliberative elections• Two examples of election reform• The Citizens’ Initiative Review
– Basic design of the CIR– Quality of CIR deliberation– CIR impact on voters
• Would the CIR work in Washington?• Summary and ongoing research
The Idea ofDeliberative Elections
Two quick definitions
A deliberative democracy is a political system that privileges high-quality public argument, civility and respect among citizens, and informed judgment at all levels of decision making.
Deliberative elections are those in which voters consider the full array of candidate/policy choices on their ballots to reach informed and reflective judgments on each question placed before them.
Initiative voting is not deliberative
• Limited knowledge of what ballot measures would do, as well as their legal/constitutional meaning
• Systematic bias in the selection, processing, and retention of issue-relevant information
• Failure to consider counter-arguments from opposing viewpoints
• Partisans’ over-reliance on elite “voting cues”
Example: WA Initiative 841 (2003)
• Initiative 841 repealed state ergonomics regulations and directed the Dept. of Labor and Industries not to adopt new state laws unless required to do so by federal standards.
• Hundreds of millions of dollars at stake (state insurance fund, insurance, and other savings, minus compliance costs)
Many voters didn’t understand I-841
Perceived Effect Supporters Opponents UndecidedEnacts regulations 16% 2% 4%Repeals regulation 11% 18% 46%Unsure 73% 81% 49%Total 100% 100% 100%
• Supporters of the repeal incorrectly believed only a handful of workers suffered ergonomics-related injuries each year.
• Opponents of the repeal incorrectly believed that most other states had similar regulations.
• A majority of voters surveyed could not recall even one argument from the other side.
Oct 28-30 2003 phone survey of 404 frequent voters in King County
Two Examples of Deliberative
Election Reform
PriorityConference
DesignPanel
B.C.Citizens’
Assembly
Citizens’Initiative Review
PolicyJury
Public policy problem identified
Ballot measure proposed
Proposalvoted up or down
Citizen deliberation can occur at five stages of the initiative process
Video clip of British Columbia Citizens’ Assembly
B.C. Citizens’ Assembly history
1996 B.C. Liberals win but lose Won a plurality of the votes (42%) but only 33 of the 72 seats
2001 Liberals campaign on reform and win
2003 B.C. Citizens’ Assembly established
2004 Citizens’ Assembly deliberates Single-Transferable-Vote system recommended
2005 B.C. public votes on election reform Wins 57% of vote and a majority in 77 of 79 ridings
Video clip of 2010 Oregon CIR
Citizens’ Initiative Review history
1974 Jefferson Center and the Citizens’ Jury
2008 Unofficial CIR demonstrated the process
2009 Oregon legislature passes initial CIR law
2010 CIR held on two ballot measures
2011 Divided legislature makes CIR permanent
2012 CIR repeated on two new ballot measures
2014 CIR pilot projects underway in AZ, CO, WA
House Vote - May 23, 2011 Senate Vote - June 1, 2011
D D D D DD D D D DD D D D RR R R R RR
R R R R RR R
D D D D DD D D D DD D D D D
Not Voting 2D R
R R R R RR R R R RR R R R RNo 22Yes 36
D D D D DD D D D DD D D D DD R R R RR R
R R R R RR R R
No 8Yes 22
HB 2634: Creates Citizens' Initiative Review Commission to oversee review of state initiative measures by citizen panels
Ballot measures addressed by CIR
2010
Measure 73: Establish mandatory minimum sentencesPanel opposed 21-3 - Passed with 57% of final vote
Measure 74: Allow medical marijuana dispensariesPanel favored 13-11 - Failed with 44% of final vote
2012
Measure 85: Redirect corporate tax refund to K-12Panel favored 19-5 - Passed with 60% of final vote
Measure 82: Enable privately-owned casinos Panel opposed 17-7 - Failed with 28% of final vote
Basic Design of the 2010-12 Citizens’ Initiative Review
Sequence of the CIR process
1. Collect a demographically stratified random sample of 24 voters to serve as Citizen Panelists
2. Citizens’ Panel gets a week to deliberate and hear from pro/con advocates and neutral witnesses
3. Panelists write a Citizens’ Statement, which goes into the official state Voters’ Pamphlet
4. Voters use the Citizens’ Statement to study ballot measures and reach more informed judgments
MONDAY Orientation to CIR
TUESDAY Pro/Con presentation/rebuttal
WEDNESDAY Witnesses called by panel
THURSDAY Pro/Con closing arguments
FRIDAY Write and present CIR Statement
Oregon Voters’ Pamphlet
Quality of CIR Deliberation
CIR participants express high levels of process satisfaction (2012)
Question: “Looking back over the past five days, how would you rate your overall satisfaction with the CIR process?” Post-survey response rate = 100% (24 panelists from each 2012 CIR)
CIR panels held in 2010 and 2012 were both deliberative and democratic
2010 2012
Evaluative categoryM73
Mandat.Mins.
M74 Marij.
Dispens.
M85Corp. Taxes
M82Non-Tribal
Casinos
Rigorous deliberation Learning basic issue information B+ B+ B+ A-
Examining of underlying values B- B B A
Considering a range of alternatives A B A B
Weighing pros/cons of measure A A A A-
Democratic process Equality of opportunity to participate A A A B+
Comprehension of information B+ B+ A- B+
Consideration of different views A A A A-
Mutual respect A- A A B
Well-reasoned Citizens’ Statement Informed decision making A-
A A
B
Non-coercive process A A A A-Letter grades based on summary of qualitative observations of CIR by on-site researchers.
CIR panel on Measure 73(Aug 9-13, 2010)
Measure 73 would establish increased minimum sentences for certain repeated sex crimes and drunk driving.
STRONGLY STRONGLY OPPOSE OPPOSE NEUTRAL FAVOR FAVOR
BEFORE DELIBERATION
STRONGLY OPPOSE NEUTRAL FAVOR STRONGLY OPPOSE FAVOR
AFTER DELIBERATION
CIR panelist views on Measure 73
This is an animated slide showing opinion change at
the 2012 CIR on sentencing: Blue = liberal panelists, yellow = independents,
red = conservatives.
General findings about CIR deliberation
• Supermajorities achievable, even contrary to prevailing public opinion
• Quality and depth of argument trumps style
• Rebuttal and indirect cross-examination effective
• Process robust enough to withstand internal and external challenges
CIR Impact on Voters
Oregonians were more aware of CIR in 2012 than in 2010
Rolling cross-sectional phone surveys, N = 400 ea. week
Roughly two-thirds of voters found the CIR at least “somewhat” useful (2012)
Elway Poll, Oct-Nov 2012,n = 312 and 249, respectively
Casinos (Measure 82) Kicker (Measure 85)0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
26% 29%
40%43%
Somewhat usefulVery useful
“In deciding how to vote [on Measure
82/85], how helpful was it to read the Citizens' Initiative
Review Statement?”
Voters trust in CIR comparable to theofficial sections of Voters’ Pamphlet (2012)
How much voters trust info. source
Online survey in Oct-Nov, 2012, N = 457
Reading the CIR Statement increased initiative-relevant voter knowledge (2012)
Ten item knowledge battery e.g., “Measure 85 PREVENTS the Oregon Legislature from redirecting current K-12 funds to other non-education budgets”. F 3, 329 = 12.8, p < .001.
415 respondents from an online poll conducted by YouGov/Polimetrix Oct. 22-Nov. 1, 2010 (RR3 response rate = 41%).
Example of CIR impact on electorate: Measure 73 (mandatory minimums, 2010)
Would the CIR Work in Washington?
CIR draft legislation originally created for WA
The original CIR legislation was created by Ned Crosbyand the Jefferson Center for New Democratic Processes
Support for CIR proposal in Washington (2006)
35.6%33.8%
9.2%
12.6%
7.8%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Strong yes Yes No Strong no Don't know
69.4% 21.8%Total Yes Total No
Oct 25-31, 2006 survey of 700 Washington residents (margin of error = +/- 4%). Question: “One proposal being considered for state law would establish independent panels of Washington citizens to provide voters with more reliable information about initiatives. Each panel would consists of a cross-section of Washington citizens, who would spend a full week hearing testimony and deliberating on the merits of each initiative. The Secretary of State would publish the citizens' final reports in the Voters Pamphlet, and the panel proceedings would be made available online. : If a vote to adopt this measure were taken today, would you support it or oppose it?”
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Strong yes Yes No Strong no Don't know
Democrat
Republican
Independent
Support for CIR proposal in Washington by political party (2006)
Total % Yes or Strong Yes 72% Dem.69% GOP70% Indep.
Reflections onDeliberative Design
Bottom line: Does the CIR work?
• High-quality deliberation is taking place during every CIR panel
• After two election cycles, more than half the OR electorate has become aware of CIR
• Voters appreciate the CIR’s neutral information, though not all choose to use it
• The CIR is changing what voters know about initiatives and influencing their judgments
Ongoing research in 2014
• Ongoing analysis of data from 2010 and 2012• CIR in Medford (Jackson County), Oregon,
April 27-30 on genetically modified crops• Official CIRs in Oregon, plus pilots developing
in Arizona, Colorado, and Washington• Usability testing across multiple states• Oregon phone surveys will provide third data
point on developing use over time• Online survey experiments continue to test
design and impact on different voter groups
ReferencesReports written for the Oregon Legislature and the Citizens Initiative Review Commission• Knobloch, K., Gastil, J., Richards, R., & Feller, T. 2013. Evaluation Report on the 2012 Citizens' Initiative Reviews for the Oregon CIR
Commission. Available online at http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/ReportToCIRCommission2012.pdf.• Gastil, J., & Knobloch, K. 2010. Evaluation Report to the Oregon State Legislature on the 2010 Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Available
online at http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/OregonLegislativeReportCIR.pdf.
Relevant books and articles • Reedy, J., Wells, C., & Gastil, J. In press. How voters become misinformed: An investigation of the emergence and consequences of false
factual beliefs. Social Science Quarterly. • Gastil, J., Richards, R., & Knobloch, K. 2014. Vicarious deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review influenced deliberation in
mass elections. International Journal of Communication, 8. Available online at http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/2235.• Gastil, J., & Richards, R. 2013. Making direct democracy deliberative through random assemblies. Politics & Society, 41, 253-281.• Knobloch, K., Gastil, J., Reedy, J., & Walsh, K. C. 2013. Did they deliberate? Applying an evaluative model of democratic deliberation to the
Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41, 105-125.• Gastil, J., Braman, D., Kahan, D., & Slovic, P. 2011. The cultural orientation of mass political opinion. PS: Political Science & Politics, 44, 711-
714.• Wells, C., Reedy, J., Gastil, J., & Lee, C. 2009. Information distortion and voting choices: Assessing the origins and effects of factual beliefs in
an initiative election. Political Psychology, 30, 953-969.• Gastil, J. 2008. Political communication and deliberation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.• Gastil, J., Black, L., & Moscovitz, K. 2008. Ideology, attitude change, and deliberation in small face-to-face groups. Political Communication,
25, 23-36.• Gastil, J., Burkhalter, S., & Black, L. 2007. Do juries deliberate? A study of deliberation, individual difference, and group member satisfaction
at a municipal courthouse. Small Group Research, 38, 337-359.• Gastil, J., Reedy, J., & Wells, C. 2007. When good voters make bad policies: Assessing and improving the deliberative quality of initiative
elections. University of Colorado Law Review, 78, 1435-1488.• Gastil, J., & Crosby, N. 2006, November 26. Taking the initiative. Seattle Times, Sunday editorial section. Available online at http://
seattletimes.com/html/opinion/2003448042_sungastil26.html.• Gastil, J., & Crosby, N. 2005, August/September. Hey, Washingtonians: Show some initiative! Washington Law & Politics, 14. Available online
at http://www.la1.psu.edu/cas/jgastil/CIR/cir.html• Forehand, M., Gastil, J., & Smith, M. A. 2004. Endorsements as voting cues: Heuristic and systematic processing in initiative elections.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2215-2234.• Gastil, J., Smith, M. A., & Simmons, C. 2001. There’s more than one way to legislate: An integration of representative, direct, and deliberative
approaches to democratic governance. University of Colorado Law Review, 72, 1005-1028.• Gastil, J. 2000. By popular demand: Revitalizing representative democracy through deliberative elections. Berkeley, CA: University of
California.
Aug 9-13
CIR on Measure 73 mandatory
min. sentencing
CIR panel votes AGAINST 21-3
M73 sponsors had engaging in CIR-style
deliberation
June 26, 2009CIR established
by Oregon House Bill 2895
St
atew
ide
Surv
ey D
ata
CIR
Pane
l Dat
a
Citi
zens
’ Ini
tiativ
e Re
view
Aug 5-31, 2010
Wave 1 of online panel survey by
YouGov/Polimetrix
N = 640 W1 onlyN = 971 both W1
and W2
Also includes Qs re: Measure 76 as a
comparison
2012-2013Discussions held with delegations from Arizona, California, Colorado, and other states regarding potential
CIR panels in 2014 elections
Aug 16-20
CIR on Measure 74 medical marijuana
CIR panel votes FOR 13-11
M74 sponsors rallied effectively mid-week to
win a tepid CIR endorsement
Aug 6-10
CIR on Measure 85 corporate tax “kicker”
refund
CIR panel votes FOR 19-5
M85 sponsors did not participate; got tepid
endorsement
Aug 20-24
CIR on Measure 82 authorizing private
casinos
CIR panel votes AGAINST 17-7
In mid-Oct, M82 sponsors suspended
their campaign
Nov 2, 2010
Oregon general election
57% vote for M73 44% vote for M74
Nov 6, 2012
Oregon general election
60% vote for M85 29% vote for M82
June 16, 2011CIR established
by Oregon House Bill 2634
August 30 – November 1
Rolling cross-sectional phone surveyby Washington Research Center N = 1,991
Oct 22-Nov 1, 2010
Second wave of online panel. Includes an
experimental manipulation, plus a Wave 2-only sample
N = 509
Oct 26 – Nov 2CIR panelists
follow-up survey N = 38
Aug 9-13: M73
Complete transcript and video of panel
Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist
questionnaires N=24
Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Gastil,
& Reedy
Aug 16-20: M74
Complete transcript and video of panel
Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist
questionnaires N=24
Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Gastil, & Cramer-Walsh
Aug 6-10: M85
Complete transcript and audio of panel
Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist
questionnaires N=24
Researchers’ detailed notes and codings Knobloch, Gastil,
& Richards
Aug 20-24: M82
Complete transcript, audio of small group sessions,
plus video of large-group sessions
Daily and end-of-week CIR panelist questionnaires
N=24
Researchers’ detailed notes and codings
Knobloch, Richards,& Feller
Oct 4-Nov 5, 2012
Online survey in Qualtrics. Includes experimental manipulation; detailed M82
section dropped early in survey period after sponsors withdrew N = 1539
Oct 25-Nov 5, 2012
Brief phone survey by Elway Polling N = 800
2012 2010
Summary of CIR Data Collection, 2010-2012