Commentary on DELIBERATION DAY by Bruce Ackerman and James S. Fishkin

The text, by Ackerman and Fishkin, it is an explanation on how to improve today’s democracies. It does not pretend to change the regime or the system in which representatives are elected, but rather to have a voting population with fact-based judgement and future-regarding judgement.

They believe that by creating a Deliberation Day where citizens would go and talk about different issues, the average voter would feel more involved and would have more knowledge about politics (Ackerman & Fishkin, 2002).

They consider that the day would benefit the average citizen in many ways. They would feel motivated to debate the issue as it would have been covered by the media during the previous 14 days, listen or at least be exposed to different opinions on the issue, making them more comprehensive and forcing them to consider the public wellbeing (Ackerman & Fishkin, 2002).

Not only the citizens would benefit, political parties would too. At the end of the day, a party spokesperson would have to answer the questions of the people. This would force political parties to train local members to be their representative in those meetings, thus consolidating the party’s base. Moreover, participants might meet new people from their community and extend the political conversation beyond the day. (Ackerman & Fishkin, 2002)

They feel that this day would be helpful to democracy, because the average citizen does not think about politics often, or if they do, they discuss it with people from similar backgrounds (Ackerman & Fishkin, 2002). They also recognise that rational ignorance could exists, and thus, they would pay 150$ to everyone that took part in the event and voted on election day (Ackerman & Fishkin, 2002). Moreover, for the day to be useful, the groups would have to be formed by diverse opinions and backgrounds, with everyone given the chance to speak and everyone listened to.

One of the strengths of Ackerman and Fishkin’s theory, is that after deliberation, individual citizens would start to take into account the public good.

This was clearly seen in an event held in Texas. After deliberation, participants agreed to increase the amount of local renewable energy production, even if it was more expensive than non-renewable one. After the implementation of this policy, Texas became the largest U.S. state in production of energy through renewable resources (U.S Energy Information Administration, 2018). Moreover, because of the large production of energy, the windmill electricity became so cost effective that the non-renewable energy was no longer cheaper (Fishkin, 2018). Therefore, this shows how their argument is strong as citizens can get a wider perspective of issues, change their opinion, understand what is the public good and propose measures to achieve it.

Their argument is rather weak when talking about how that day would help the average voter. Because they want the groups to be relatively small, 15 and 500 people, and local, it is very likely that everyone, or a big part of the group would be from the same background and have the similar opinions. If this were to happen in the USA before the Presidential Election, the people in the groups would be at least from the same state, let’s say California. Maybe, the people in the groups would even be from the same county. For many years now, California has been largely Democrat, 63.8% of the voters voted for Joe Biden and only 34.1% for Donald Trump in the last election (Fox News, 2020). Therefore, if Deliberation Day was to happen for the USA’s presidential election, as the authors planned, it would be very likely that in states which always go to the same party, like California, many people would not attend these sessions. Some Democrats might not attend because they know they will win, and they do not feel like they need to convince the Republicans. On the other hand, Republicans might not attend because they believe that it will be not possible to convince voters about their political view.

The weakness is also seen in the preparation of the day. Because the main political parties decide what topics will be discussed, they have the chance to choose topics which they feel comfortable talking about but do not necessarily have to be the most important ones for the average voter. Moreover, in the case of the USA’s presidential elections, the most important issues for an urban and a rural voter will be different. Therefore, even if the parties choose the topics which concern most voters nationwide, many might feel that their issues are not discussed resulting in them not attending.

To conclude, Deliberation Day might work for local issues which the average citizens knows little about or non-partisan issues. Moreover, many might attend just for the economic compensation, but will at least listen or observe what happens, and thus, get more knowledge and maybe develop an interest in politics. Nevertheless, because of the role of political parties, it could result in less people attending due to the chosen topics. Thus, the proposal might be very effective when trying to implement local non-partisan policies, but rather inefficient when dealing with major or party-based issues.

Bibliography

Ackerman, B., & Fishkin, J. S. (2002). Deliberation Day. The Journal of Political Philosophy, 129-152.

Fishkin, J. (2018). Democracy When the People Are Thinking [Recorded by TEDx Talks]. Redwood City, California, United States of America.

Fox News. (2020). Fox News Democracy 2020. Retrieved from Fox News: https://www.foxnews.com/elections/2020/general-results

U.S Energy Information Administration. (2018). U.S. States. Retrieved from U.S Energy Information Administration: https://www.eia.gov/state/