I have 2 questions:
Out of the 'random sampling' of participants, will the initial partisan-leanings of each be noted and will the various different viewpoints (Conservative, Liberal, Progressive, Libertarian, etc) be equally distributed among the participants?
How would this poll and it's eventual outcomes, do anything to change a segment of our society who gleefully embrace 'willful-ignorance'?
1
The authors seem to believe that the chasm that has opened over the last 40-50 years in this country can be closed, or at least bridged, by the insights generated in the equivalent of a weekend-long civics class. Given what's currently happening in this country, this is like trying to put out the fires in the Amazon rain forest with your very own Super Soaker.
3
We have a reliable if too little used method of understanding what candidates propose and stand for. We can read their actual proposals. The internet is chock full of them. An intelligent conversation can happen only when people understand issues and candidate positions.
3
10 people struggling to stand out to get attention with soundbites is not a “debate”.
Come up with something else.
3
Could these spectacles be any more embarrassing? Hollering, talking 10 at a time, trying to throw a catchy line? Why not give each 15 uninterrupted minutes to make his case, winnow the field, and give the remainder 30 minutes?
I refuse to watch these so-called debates. I need to know the candidates' policies, not their reaction time and snideness-factor.
2
Could you cooperate with the NYT to serialize the event? The briefings and the following discussions. Please, not videos, or at least not only videos, transcripts are essential.
It sounds at a lot more interesting, informative, and "real" than the televised debates and (sad to say) the NYT limited one-time attempt to bring a candidate debate forum to its own pages a few months ago.
Of course, if it were popular then there's the chance that the participants would be subjected to external pressure. If that's a real possibility serialize it after its finished.
I would love to see the "debates" turned into a discussion where the candidates sit around a table and really discuss the three most important issues (without attacking each other, I'm looking at you, Kamala). After that, each can get up and explain their platform.
Dr. Fishkin lives in an alternate universe where Voters (even Trump Voters!) are well informed. All participants would read briefing papers? What a laugh! Our so-called president doesn’t read them and doesn’t even have the patience to listen to short oral briefings, so what makes the author think that his “supporters” will have the interest or ability to do so?
3
The country is based on capitalism and the animal needs to be fed. Cable and regular news feeds the process. Talking heads repeat the same statements four hundred different ways and usually do not drill deeply into a topic.
The public do not find the issues complex as the writer implied in the article. The public is not stupid, they are paying attention to ever lie that the talking heads and politicians are telling us with a straight face. The public deals with the increase in drugs, a family member with dementia. The public is paying more for everything and there are no increases in their salaries. The public is not putting children in cages or telling parents of sick children in the hospital that they have to leave the country in 33 days
Maybe the media who establishes these meaningless I gotcha debates should look at themselves and devise a meaningful format. Unfortunately telling the truth is boring and the ratings might suffer
The public has a solid understanding of all of the issues and are aware of the racism and distortions of the truthl
What we should be voting for is an agenda, not candidates.
Having determined the most beneficial agenda, candidates should be required to adhere to it. They don't all need to come up with their own solutions. Nobody knows everything.
A reasonable agenda should result from extensive public opinion (as this effort does), expert opinion, and should be somewhat binding on both parties and candidates.
Here's my take:
Good government damps down inequality with graduated income and wealth taxes and maintains a strong safety net.
Democracy combined with expert opinion and a strong respect for evidence determines policy direction. (Not SCOTUS.)
Human rights should never be compromised. FDR's values are a good start.
Existential threats like looming climate collapse, nuclear holocaust, plague, should be of the highest priority.
Infrastructure maintenance never allowed to fail.
3
The main debates take place in the final months between the two presidential candidates, last time between Clinton and Trump. They provided riveting drama as each tried to land a political punch while moderators strained to ask relevant questions in a civil manner. Other than a pitched battle between the nominees, little light was shed how the country's problems would be addressed, let alone solved. The main questions after each debate were, "Who won?" and "How many people watched?" If the travesty of those final debates produced so little clarifying information, even less can be expected from the preliminary ones. Since television stations are profiting from the heated exchanges that draw viewership, less confrontational formats are not likely to thrive in the commercialized atmosphere surrounding presidential campaigns.
2
I have been doing this for nearly 3 years with 500 voters. Happy to share what I have learned, if it helps. https://salientventures.co/research
Why would the Democrats even try to have an informative debate? All that's ever broadcast, tweeted or talked about are the zingers. They're quick and memorable and leave the networks more time for Xarelto ads.
1
The debates are a mess. There's absolutely no structure to it. You have a moderator who goes from one topic to the next, seemingly randomly calling on whoever they think should speak, and then other candidates randomly speaking out/interrupting in between, and it seems to be complete chaos. It's not only uninformative, it's also excruciating and not very entertaining, so what is the media's goal here?
Instead, get the top 5-6 candidates in a room. Outline a set of 4-5 issues that will be discussed on that given debate night. Go around to each of the 5-6 candidates and allow them each five minutes to present in detail their policy proposal and vision for America on each issue. Allow 10 minutes for open ended discussion and back and forth.
16
@Joe Arena
"Instead, get the top 5-6 candidates in a room. "
NO! This is backwards. It is much too soon to have named "the top 5-6 candidates." Putting Joe and Bernie and Elizabeth and Pete and AOC on the stage NOW will seriously shortchange the other still-viable candidates.
Polling and name recognition define "top" in the current mode. That does not reflect most serious, best prepared, most imaginative, or "sirprisingly surpriing."
How much attention would AOC have garnered 14 months before her election?
Yes, the debates are silly and not helpful. Let's come up with something more informative and illuminating.
This is a great idea. I would add a few suggestions. The participants should become the actual audience at the debates. The candidates should take questions directly from the participants instead of the moderators, and the moderators play referee instead of interlocutor. Some of the research and source material should be shared with the national audience so that they can be further engaged. As a result of all of this the focus of national engagement with the debates could shift from the drama of quips and microrhetoric to the national debate about the issues. And it could all be delivered in a TV friendly, reality TV format.
18
The headline asks if there's a better way to handle our Democratic Debate. I'm not sure exactly where Democratic Debate overlaps with our Election Process, but perhaps if the latter were overhauled, the former would change to fit the new parameters.
1. The perpetual election cycle has to go. Trump started running for re-election immediately after his swearing in. Whom, besides himself, does that benefit? In Canada, campaigns run from 36 to 50 days in length. Even twice that would be a desirable respite for most Americans. One reason there's so much discord in our politics is that there's too much at stake for too long. Shorter campaigns might force candidates and parties to focus on the issues/solutions, not exploit divisions.
2. Why not a single nationwide ranked-primary election, perhaps spanning one entire weekend, or a weekday declared a federal holiday? Every voter chooses his/her top three candidates, in order from most favored to least. Results are tabulated accordingly, and provisions are made for a runoff should the margin between the top two vote-getters amount to a statistical tie.
3. Something must be done to overturn Citizens United and curtail lobby money.
At the risk of being naive, if the election system is modified, the nature and tone of the election process will be forced to follow.
35
No "multi-voting".
Sure, it can get a result faster, but it won't be the same result as when there are opportunities to seriously consider alternatives in a run-off situation.
The "efficient" approach is not always the best approach.
1
@D Price
#1- Limit election time to 3 months, do not allow politicians to use their office to run for office. 3 months is the limit .
#2- Everyone who has a US birth certificate can vote. No other registration.
#3- Voting allowed over 6 weeks and mail in ballots promoted. Fines for not voting.
#4- Any "debates" are fact checked as they occur and lies are revealed at the moment.
#5- The dangerous electoral college is stopped.
2
@Margo
YES; open primaries and rank-choice voting.
Primaries are public elections; they should not be hijacked by political parties, which are NOT public institutions. If they want to select candidates for office, they can do so the same way anyone individual would: file the paperwork and run a campaign.
1
A wonderful project. But how can informed conversation be made politically relevant?
Headlines & tweets trying to grab attention from the largest number of people, and pundits who earn their living by selling moral outrage are incompatible with conversation.
Americans agree on a lot: the need to address climate change, to reform health care, to bring back progressive taxation, to prevent discrimination, to reform immigration & undocumented labor, etc. It all depends on the questions people are asked, how they are framed, & whether the people asking are interested in fostering informed debate or in selling a narrative. In a sense, the real division in America is not between people, but between the people & the political-media system's caricature of people.
The political success of the current president lies in his ability to sell dishonest, caricatured views of both parties, of the Democrats to his supporters, and of his supporters to his opponents. Conversation & debate are impossible. We’re all motivated by impotent anger. In whose interest is it to prevent conversation & debate? To use politics to disempower rather than to empower? Is it possible to have productive political debate when politics & government & media are run for financial profit, rather than being protected from it?
32
The biggest improvement to our democratic debate could be in dissuading democratic-losers at the ballot box from gathering in the streets. Instead, those defeated at the ballot box, need spend time and energy reshaping opinions into reasonable and presentable positions. Like Nixon; he was counted out of politics many times. Yet he did not stand in the street whining; he won, twice.
While I wish you success with this initiative, I am skeptical. The two sides are so polarized at this point - and egged on by many politicians - that having a productive discussion seems unlikely.
When the two sides can’t even agree on what is fact and what is fiction, I fail to see much common ground to stand upon. America has brought itself to a very troubling place, and I see no reasonable or peaceful way back to cooperation.
1
The word that sprang out at me from this excellent article is 'weaponized'. Discord has been weaponized. It isn't enough any more to disagree with a candidate's politics: they have to be attacked personally. Of course this is nothing new, but it used to be the stuff of attack ads. Now everyone seems to talk that way. It simply puts people off politics.
38
This is exactly the type of forum I have been speaking about with my friends and acquaintances. It is important to have the candidates give their views about the issues in which the voters are interested, and have it done in a civilized manner. The current adversarial debate system is set up for sensationalism in order to raise network ratings, not in order to inform the public.
55
That is a very important experiment, and I am very much looking forward to the results!
Among many aspects, it will be particularly interesting to see in which direction the opinions of the participants change during the discussions - and how this fluctuates from group to group. Ideally, all groups would converge to a similar understanding of at least the fundamental problems, unless there are strong influences of individual participants on the others.
2
"Most voters are still barely paying attention to the campaign." What!?! I can assure you that there are many of us paying attention to every single detail.
I salute you for trying to create a good way for people to pay attention to facts and to become informed about candidates. It's a laudable way to attempt to educate people. The thing that these tv debates do is demonstrate some things about a candidate's personality, likability, etc. However, I think that's important too. The debates between Hillary and trump certainly put the nail in the coffin for me about never wanting him to be our leader.
There is a big problem with your approach, though. 500 people to represent all the voters in the U.S. That is far less than statistically significant.
2
It always bothered me that there is extensive reporting on the position of the candidates in the polls of candidates rather than the positions of the candidates on the issues. I only care about the latter.
15
@Donna Kraydo
Only certain polls are endorsed within the pages of the NYTs and other media outlets as a way to prevent "outsider" candidates, such as Tulsi Gabbard from having a public forum to reach the people in the debates. There is a corporately owned and supported orthodoxy that the major media will only endorse within the content of their reports. So much for a "free press", they use their power to manipulate the election process to further their own narrow interests.
2
"When the event is complete, we will present an analysis of the results in this section."
Finding a way to present this in a way that will be understandable and acceptable to the majority of both camps will be key. Best of luck. This is important.
3
Actually, something like this is enshrined in the constitution, albeit in a slightly different form. The participants are called electors. The idea was for citizens to choose from among themselves a group of people who will vote after doing something along the lines of what you propose. Instead of eliminating the electoral college, we should reinvent it.
3
As Lefty of NC said, its called a civics class. This proposition by the authors is really just adult education for a few - an education that should've been provided to everyone in school, where children used to be taught about the fundamentals of U.S. government in history and civics classes, where development of critical thinking skills and opportunities to participate in and listen to debate were part of the curriculum, and where students left with an understanding of and trust in the scientific method.
The "poisonous fog of our political polarization" is rooted in a poorly-educated populace that simply does not share an understanding of our nation's history, a common set of values, a sense of civic responsibility, or agreement on what constitutes truth.
6
I'm not sure an event like this would seriously impact the primary results. I wouldn't change my vote just because a candidate persuades a focus group. So what difference does it make how a candidate does in this forum? It can't replace actual voting, and that's not how voters make decisions.
In general, I think Democratic primaries put too much emphasis on policy proposals. The details of a candidate's healthcare plan don't make much difference in what Congress will send to the White House after the election. In reality, the biggest crisis the next president will face is unlikely to have been mentioned during the election at all.
A deliberative poll might tell you which candidate has the most popular plan to deal with five issues, but it won't tell you who will be the best president.
2
@Jim U It’s a first step. It’s an experiment. It’s research. One would hope it would be meaningful and be expanded over time.
4
The fact is that democracies are sustained not by transformative ideals and charismatic leaders but by consensus and compromising and trading favors, everything that is boring and unsatisfying and indecisive. The alternatives are tyrants and oligarchies. If you want entertainment, watch sports or whatever, but politics is deadly serious and should not be entertaining.
7
"we think that, despite their sharp differences of party and ideology, Americans can have serious and respectful conversations across our deep divides'
Seriously? What's the advertising value in this. Who is going to spend 2 days watching this when the outcome will be completely irrelevant. What country do you think you're living in? Sweden?
1
Interesting - what you describe is exactly what Congress is supposed to do. We, the people, elect representatives who go to DC to give thoughtful consideration to the biggest problems facing us.
7
@Citizen To a huge degree, true. And another example of a function and need that has been sort of ceded to the states (demand for tax returns) and voters overall. All voters should be very well briefed. Our current celebrity TV system makes that difficult. The League of Women Voters once fulfilled part of the plan, but they have retreated. Why? We need basic “civics” even more urgently today. OF course, some would prefer that voters get stuck on “shiny objects” and remain stupid, the better to lead them and the US to destruction.
Given my own personal interest in civil discourse and fact-based policy, I am looking forward to reading the results of this particular set of discussions. Thank you for your work on this.
4
This essay implicitly assumes that preferred policy choices are what matter most in selecting a candidate. Policies are important, but there are other crucial criteria for a potential President:
1) Does this candidate have the necessary temperament to make urgent decisions based on insufficient information that will affect the lives of millions (or billions) of people?
2) Will this candidate put the interests of the United States over their own?
3) Who is this candidate likely to appoint to key administrative positions?
4) Does this candidate have the intellectual horsepower to understand complex policy choices and the discipline to follow an effective decision-making process?
5) Has this candidate proven an ability to manage a large, complex organization?
6) Is this candidate committed to representing the whole of the American people, including those who didn't vote for them?
7) Am I willing to have this candidate represent me in front of the world?
There are other important criteria as well, but limiting the scope to policy preferences is far too narrow.
13
In this reader's opinion one of the biggest problems with our campaign and election seasons is how the media covers the issues, or doesn't. There is too much sensationalism going on. There is also too much twisting of what candidates say or have said in the past. Digging back into a candidate's past for ways to discredit them is one thing. Not allowing them to change, as most of us do as we age, is ridiculous. All of us have things in our past that reflect badly on us. Almost all of us experience moments where our opinions or ideas or feelings on issues change. By insisting that candidates be consistent we are denying them and ourselves the opportunity to listen to a story about another person's life where a crucial understanding occurred. How many of us are the same people we were at 17 or 20 or even 35?
The campaign season needs to be shortened. Candidates should have to release the last 7 years of their tax returns, state and federal. Campaigns should be informative, not accusatory, or smears. When there are debates candidates should have to answer the questions rather than being allowed to evade them, accuse the opponent, etc. At this point there are too many issues at stake to permit the games politicians love to play to continue.
7
If there were indeed one accepted set of facts, things that were truthful and these could be debated and agreed on then unity might happen.
Problem is everyone has "facts" and "truths" and mostly "beliefs" they hold onto. They all refer to the many sources available to back any and all positions. My "fact" is not accepted by one who has their own"fact".
Then there is the tribalism that divides us and forces us to accept everything Our tribe believes. Maybe you do not want abortion but want gun rights or climate controls, but to be an accepted member you must buy the whole list.
3
Serious discussion produces low ratings for the mass media and shrinking ad revenues. Expect nothing but these melodramatic scenes that further build mistrust and animosities.
5
@Casual Observer Yes the next election will be an entertainment spectacle and Trump knows this. Most folks minds are made up depending on what Tribe they identify with. Discussing health care will not work as well as insulting an opponent and making up lies to get everyone gossiping.
Every election becomes another demoralizing demonstration of the ignorance of the American voter.
"Freedom isn't free." You hear it all the time - meaning gun up, more military spending, rather than PAY ANY ATTENTION.
Poor baby Americans, the most powerful voters in the world, can't stand politics. It's tooooo ugly, for the poor babies. So much easier to do WHAT DAVID KOCH WANTS YOU TO DO. Hate government!
Oh, and Global Warming is a hoax propagated by mad scientists, who just don't have the smarts of Donald Trump.
PATHETIC! REPUBSUCK.
9
I was struck by the juxtaposition of this article (by someone with presumably Democratic democratic leanings, James Fishkin, and someone from the Hoover Institution and probably - not certainly - with more Republican leaning democratic preferences, Larry Diamond) and the Linda Greenhouse article just above it.
The title and lede of the former is:
"A Better Way to Do Primaries"
"Americans can have serious and respectful conversations across our deep divides."
(The lede might suggest that this article is focused on simply the Democratic presidential primaries, but it becomes apparent upon reading that the the authors are proposing a model for "respectful conversations" across inter, and not just intra, party lines.)
Greenhouse's article, which is here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/29/opinion/trump-civil-rights.html
is titled:
"Civil Rights Turned Topsy-Turvy"
with the lede:
"The Trump administration is moving on two fronts to undo civil rights protections."
Like Mick Jagger, I try and I try and I try and I try, but so far without satisfaction, to get my head around the concept of a "respectful conversation" with someone who could still, with full knowledge of what Greenhouse has written, institutionally and/or electorally, identify seriously - and in 2019, not, say, 1819, or even perhaps 1919 - with a political party whose leaders are working actively to "undo civil rights protections."
How is such a party affiliation only foolish and not just downright knavish?
10
The duality of voters!
Are they going to vote like waves or particles.
The media is doing the macro analysis (waves) and the selected voters are doing the microanalysis (particles).
Will they converge toward each other?
Will there be light at the end of the tunnel?
1
"We will need to minimize the tendency of our partisan tribes to talk past one another, and not with just different values but with different facts."
Excuse me, but there is one "tribe" in our country that holds different facts, or as they say, alternative facts, i.e., lies.
That tribe won't listen or accept the truth. The truth to them is fake news--elitist, sozialist, liberal propaganda.
Their leader tells them not to believe what they see or hear. He lies, shuts down civil discourse with insults, slander, inane comments, moronic theories, non-stop blabber. And his tribe cheers.
He doesn't discuss issues or values. He whines. His rallies are gripe sessions, his bully megaphone turned against the majority of the people.
The majority was cheated out of judges and supreme court justices and their president twice. Women's rights are threatened, the vote suppressed by the GOP. The GOP won't raise the minimum wage but will take food stamps from the poor and give tax cuts to the rich.
The GOP tribe doesn't act in good faith or play by the rules. It despises civility and fairness. So, the idea of getting a "microcosm" of Americans together in a room to debate issues in a civil manner is well-meaning maybe. It is also folly, an exercise in futility.
11
It's called a civics class!
5
And just how do you propose the "balanced briefing material" be created--by splitting the difference between a NYTimes reporter and a Fox News personality? And how will this briefing counteract the biased misinformation and propaganda of right wing pseudo-think tanks with their paid polemecists?
7
I very much look forward to seeing the results of this program, and wish I had been randomly invited! I see some self-fulfilling, naysaying comments here, whose logic generally comes around to “nothing is sufficiently representative, because it excludes the group of people who refuse to be represented” and whose cited authority equates “I don’t see how...” with “it can’t be.” I hope such commenters will nevertheless look at what is produced.
2
The sterile, academic, practice proposed by Fishkin and Diamond offers nothing of consequence in the face of an electorate coming apart at the seams by hyper-partisanship, and mindless posturing by presidential wannabes. What would be the import of it outcomes?
I am noticing a number of comments suggesting a return to the practice of party elders retiring to smoke-filled rooms and selecting who in their opinion would be the most electable candidate(s). It is assumed each of the two dominant parties would so nominate its favorite and the two would battle it out in the general election. Another retreat from reality.
It could be argued that the Democrats chose, in practice, that approach in 2016 with the coronation of Hillary Clinton and subsequent disastrous loss of the election to the renegade Republican flamethrower now ensconced in the White House.
On the flip side, Republicans, powerless to stem a populist uprising, was forced to nominate a disgusting nativist and isolationist who went on to win the election.
A tale of two parties. In the end, the primary machinery produced two of the most unpopular political beasts in recent memory. Each in its own way.
2
These ideas may not be perfect but they’re certainly better than what we’ve seen to date under the current format. Largely, all we’ve heard is “your time’s up” Ms. or Mr. Whoever You Are. In order to make any progress in the nomination process the primary states (in advance of Super Tuesday) must be re-examined. NH has what to do with any serious sampling of America? There doesn’t seem to be much diversity nor national connection from this tiny state where some of their top products are guns (Ruger), boots (Timberland), and the “Farmer’s Almanac). Then off to IA where EVERYONE running must take the “ethanol pledge” that is one of the highest subsidized products that requires more energy to make than it provides. How any Dem could campaign in these states without throwing up in the mouth is beyond me.
I’m all in favor of anything other than the farcical process we currently have in place.
7
Tell that to the Republicans im my small town. They immediately attack as "unamerican" anyone who does not agree with Trump and the Republican Party. One example: the Republican float in this year's 4th of July parade was covered with anti-Democrats, anti-non-whites and anti-gay posters. The posters all claimed that those groups were enemies of the true America. OTOH the Democrats and the Green Party's floats were positive and attacked no one.
10
Quoting the piece:
"It will bring together a national sample of more than 500 registered voters from all over the United States, recruited by an independent, nonpartisan research institution, NORC at the University of Chicago."
U of C being pretty much an isolated academic bubble always in search of subjects for study. Good school, though.
Given all this presented here, it makes me nostalgic for the Chicago machine. Probably not the best way to do politics, but you can't argue with its handleability when it comes to debate.
To quote U of C alum, judge and politician Abner Mikva:
"One of the stories that is told about my start in politics is that on the way home from law school one night in 1948, I stopped by the ward headquarters in the ward where I lived. There was a street-front, and the name Timothy O'Sullivan, Ward Committeeman, was painted on the front window. I walked in and I said "I'd like to volunteer to work for [Adlai] Stevenson and [Paul] Douglas." This quintessential Chicago ward committeeman took the cigar out of his mouth and glared at me and said, "Who sent you?" I said, "Nobody sent me." He put the cigar back in his mouth and he said, "We don't want nobody that nobody sent." This was the beginning of my political career in Chicago.[7]"
1
The truth is a person either thinks Trump is acceptable or a person doesn't. I know a man who is my age and between us we have almost 150 years on this planet. His time here has lead him to being a huge Trump follower, my time on earth has lead me to believe Trump is an abomination. There is no bridging that chasm and there is nothing to talk about.
11
Read briefing papers reviewed by policy experts? I almost choked on my coffee, I was laughing so hard. This could hardly read any more like The Onion's interpretation of what a bunch of people ensconced on the Stanford campus could come up with. Out here in flyover country a large % of Trump voters believe that he was chosen by God. How exactly will you deal with that? Trump was chosen and elected by people who don't read policy papers because they don't believe in the advice of experts. They think people like you are fools. For once I agree with them. And I don't think I'm the only Democrat laughing this morning.
6
When the Republicans side is steeped in 24/7 Fox News & bully pulpit propaganda over 12,000 documented outright lies - please explain to me who I can converse with conservatives living in an funhouse alternative universe?
It’s impossible to bridge a divide when one side lives in a cult. This article isn’t helpful. Nice try though.
6
"This experiment is actually happening soon. From Sept. 19 to 22, the nonpartisan institution Helena is convening America in One Room."
I strongly urge readers to click on the "Helena" link to find out--or, just as instructively, not really find out--what people are behind this thing.
It's hard to say. If you go to this organization's "members" page, you get a lot of glossy glamour shots of mostly young people beaming at you, with a few old people who turn out to be CEOs or "philanthropists" (--I'll leave you to guess the predominant race/gender of those in the latter category).
So what is this group? Who's funding it? How are the "members' picked, by whom? There are a lot of young near-celebs mixed in with former generals and aged intelligence officers.
The whole presentation is very slick and show-biz with a heaping helping of jargon about "first-principle thinkers" and self-congratulation ("some of the world's most remarkable people").
The thing is plain bizarre. Take a look. You'll be amazed at how great they think they are.
6
@Jim - Well, I was not so amazed as you were, but I did go to the webpage looking for the same information, and didn't come away much wiser. I was also curious how the participants were (will be?) chosen.
Given the reality of having a grifter, sexual predator, demented President, this whole exercise seems to me bordering on adding more surreal stuff to the already nightmarish mix we are going through.
I am more than able to say that Bernie Sanders has and will be my candidate of choice as he represents the policies and programs I see as being best for this nation.
1
I say just dump the primaries. We don't talk 'past each other.' What we have is plethora of advocacy groups fighting for market share of the public discourse with emotion-laden broadsides, fake outrage and rank fear mongering. Get 500 randomly selected people in a room to talk about "issues" and all you've got is an ignorant public in microcosm arguing over the latest symbolic cultural crisis.
Folks like Mr. Fishkin are under the impression that there is some mystical property inherent in "the people's will" that if not distorted in some way will always yield reasonable and rational policy. Nonsense. Mass publics are inherently stupid. What we should be doing is empowering an educated political class and responsible professional politicians.
2
Once you get people to read "a common set of briefing papers" that will, I am sure, be factually accurate, you've already moved the needle. Those who watch Fox or listen to Limbaugh, M. Savage, and the repugnant Alex Jones have a world view that is not fact-based. I fear that this experiment invalidates itself in that its use of people willing to read that "common set of ...papers" already skews the sample.
9
Ironic such a piece encouraging civilized debate is on these pages.
The media has consistently called anyone who wants to limit immigration in any way racist, so of course these people will not respond to polls. They have no trust that the person purportedly calling for a poll won't try to embarrass them.
I don't like the idea of selecting representation by a poll.
The problems are three-fold. First, the initial votes cast are the early primary States, which are individual and if course do not represent the entire nation. Second, there is not a process that winnows the field usefully. Third, the process of campaigning is dependent on begging for money, which leads to the inordinate influence of campaign donors.
The answer is to have a series of "primaries" that are actually national. And each one leads to a smaller candidate pool, until eventually a run-off between two is the final determination. The presentation of the candidates should be without external funding sources, and with party equal funding. A ranked-choice ballot would allow the top candidates to be selected (either 4 or 8 depending on the patience for the process)(using a reverse-Monte-Carlo scoring). Then have a second primary to go from 8 to 4. Then a 3rd to go from 4 to 2. Then a final primary to go from 2 to the nominee.
If the wide-open pool was on the first primary ballot on April 1st, the 8-candidate pool would be selected and campaign again thru April (without external funding). A May 1st primary would cut the candidates to 4, who would campaign thru May. A June 1st primary would cut the pool to 2, and they would campaign thru June. The final primary would be in July. The winner would be formally announced at the Convention after that.
2
I think we should have a national primary day for both parties. One day in March or April of our national presidential election year, every registered Democrat and Republican would have the opportunity to vote for their party's nominee. This current laborious process for choosing a nominee is not good for the candidates nor the country.
4
You might want to start with the Senate and the House of Representatives. These people are the ones who have seriously divided the country. The rest of us are just sheep, for the most part.
That same time I would like to know that every State and Territory is represented. And every group, such as Democrats, Republicans, Green Party, Libertarians and Independents
Then maybe I would place more weight to the findings.
2
Does my opinion even matter? As a New Yorker - I haven't been polled by anyone and by the time we have our primary - the decision on who will run will have already been made by people in Iowa, New Hampshire and other places that don't represent me.
5
Another better way is to use ranked choice for the election. Let voters actually support the candidates they believe in without threats of “spoiling” things or “throwing away” their votes on a candidate who may not be mainstream.
9
This sounds like a valuable undertaking, one that would be even more valuable if the briefing papers were made available to the public and the discussions televised/livestreamed or recorded for later presentation.
7
I hate horse-race politics, I hate superficial voting, and so I love this idea. My fellow commenters have already pointed out a number of caveats. One stands tallest to me: those "balanced" briefing papers.
Just remember that "balanced" is in the eye of the pen-holder.
- May we (as one commenter already suggested) see those papers made available to the public, so we know the basis for the outcomes you'll report from your session?
- Will you make the individual participants of the session available afterward to give accounts in their own words of what they heard and did?
You have a worthy model here. Please do everything to can to make sure it's never just a scrim for predetermined outcomes.
3
A small body of people of about 500 individuals from various backgrounds that discuss the issues of our day. Sounds like Congress.
The presidential race is poll driven? I want a poll that allows voters to rank their top three candidates. Let's see what happens then.
1
I looked at the date and confirmed that today is not the first of April so I'm having a hard time figuring out the point of this article. Are the authors serious?
First there is a sample of the population (how one arrives at such a sample is beyond me), then you "randomly" select people to choose a candidate after forcing them to be together for a week or so. No thanks!
The political parties need to go back to their roots. There should not be any public voting to determine the candidates. The party tops should together decide who the party candidate will be. This is how is was done in the past and this is how it's done in most European parliamentary systems. The parties should take back control, then we won't have to deal with two year long primaries and anomalies like Donald Trump wouldn't be possible.
1
Not a bad idea except for the fact that the candidates will still be free to blather. The reason I say this is because I've watched the Democratic debates to date and I see very little interest on the part of candidates to be held accountable for specifics. Given the chance to do the same, I think they'll cling to tried and (un)true blather.
I'd take it a step further by putting the candidates themselves through the same process and hold their debates to one thing, i.e., the chance to explain their majority and minority positions.
Televise the whole thing so millions of Americans have the chance to a) hear what intelligent briefing papers have to say and b) focus in on the guts of opposing positions.
This election is too important for the Democrats to be vilifying each other over mostly irrelevant issues with cliches. What they really need is an opportunity to show how they would unite the country in sensible plans. The idea that what we're seeing amounts to a debate is ludicrous and it isn't going to be doing the candidates any favors in the long run when they run into the Trump smoke and mirrors medicine show.
1
The debates are never about substance or informative - pure political theater.
Would you please make the briefing papers/video available to the public?
Please respond.
If these briefing papers/video are as good as you suggest, libraries could use them as a basis for a discussion group, with one topic each week, for five weeks.
15
@Lucy Cooke - If you visit the link, it says "A1R provides this group with nonpartisan briefing materials (which will be made publicly available ahead of the event) on the five main issues of the 2020 presidential cycle—the economy, the environment, foreign policy, health care, and immigration..."
« it has had constructive effects in clarifying the public’s considered judgments. »
This smells like a sales pitch.
"Balanced" briefing materials. What do you do when objective reality isn't balanced? When one side or the other is just plain wrong? Will you present their falsehoods/misprepresentations as "just another opinion a reasonable person could have"?
3
The political parties should run, and pay for, primaries. Nobody gets elected to anything, and it perpetuates the existing parties.
Stop running them at taxpayer expense!
4
I love all the commentators and pundits who feel the need to make the system "better" for all the "uniformed" voters out there who make "bad" choices. We live in a time when every single one of us has access to an entire universe's worth of information on every issue imaginable at our fingertips. Some of that information is pure nonsense and fabrication but each of us has the opportunity to wade through as much of it as we like and make up our own minds. We don't need expert panels or more focused polling. Those who disagree with the current political outcomes always think the "system" needs fixing. Get over it and focus on the next election. Whether you win or lose doesn't make you "right" or "wrong". It just means we have a difference of opinion.
1
This sounds wonderful, moving some of the decision-making from our emotions to our reason.
How about one more experiment in the same vein: a debate without a live audience. Could be primary, but I'd especially like to see it in the presidential debates. Imagine Donald and Hillary in a debate where neither could not play to the audience, and the focus was on the true quality of their ideas.
14
This is a great idea.
And I heard another one that maps better to our current system: the acceptance primary/runoff proposal.
Under that system, voters would vote for all candidates that they found acceptable in the primary. Then the top two would face each other in a runoff.
This prevents similar candidates from dividing a constituency, a factor that favors fringe candidates over mainstream candidates. It also favors candidates with interpartisan appeal.
3
Our system of primaries only serves to let the party insiders manipulate who get their party’s nomination. The results are often a poor choice of candidates. As an example 2016.
We should have one open primary in which everyone can vote regardless of party affiliation. The two candidate with the must votes would then be voted on in the general election to select the winner. And of course, no Electoral College.
In order to limit the number of candidates to a reasonable number each candidate would first need to get signatures on petitions in either all or maybe 2/3s or 3/4s of the states. The number of signatures required would be a percentage of that state’s population. In this way each state would have a relatively equal say.
This would make our elections a bit more of a free for all but would give us better choices and hopefully better results.
3
@Pete - Actually, the reality is exactly opposite of what you wrote. The parties have lost control. The party tops don't decide anything. States like NH and Iowa have written laws to declare that they hold the first primaries in the nation. Donald Trump became the candidate in spite of the Republican "insiders".
The parties have the power, but apparently not the desire, to call a stop to this nonsense. All the parties have to do is declare that any state that holds a primary prior to [some date in late August/early Sept] will be disqualified. The party chairpersons can change the primary rules as they will. There is no constitutional "right" to a primary and the federal and state governments have to "right" to have any say in the matter.
The political parties need to go back to how it was 100 years ago...
@Pete: We have open primaries in California. In my rural congressional district, a lifelong Republican ran as a liberal Democrat and a right wing group sent out a mailing that appeared to be a nonpartisan election recommendation of thesis fake Democrat as the Democrats' choice and the Republican candidate as the Republicans choice. The Fake Democrat got enough Democrats' votes that the Runoff is between two Republicans. While it was not illegal, it certainly showed how the Republicans will do any underhanded thing to sideline th other parties.
Such exercises are meaningless so long as many states (including mine) deny independents the right to participate in the primaries. Either you restrict your gathering to party members who will actually be allowed to vote in their state's primary, destroying the notion of assembling "a statistical microcosm of America," or else you include a large number (40%??) of citizens who belong to neither of the two dominant tribes and whose opinions regarding who should be on the ballot simply don't count.
The two dominant parties are private clubs that have been allowed to commandeer our nation's political system for their own enrichment and that have long-vested interests in fomenting tribal rivalries and discord. A "better way for the American people to grapple in depth with the issues we face at the start of the primary season" would be to take these unconstitutional gangs of political thugs out of the process and allow ALL Americans to participate in a preliminary winnowing of the field of aspiring candidates, without regard for the partisan affiliations of either the candidates or the voters.
There was a system that eliminated all the evils of our current primaries. Tthe candidates selected by the national conventions.
There was no endless campaigning, a vastly smaller influence of money, and those choosing the candidates knew the candidates.
I know; it was so old fashioned and un-democratic. But there was no ridiculous non-stop campaigning, and it worked pretty well. In 1944, they knew FDR was dying and his vice President, Henry Wallace, was too Socialist and weird to lead us. So they gave us Harry Truman.
That kind of thing can't happen today. Instead of standing on their heads to prevent us getting a hopelessly flawed leader, all the campaigns work non-stop to prevent us from even knowing. Until it's too late.
The new isn't necessarily better than the old. Sometimes it's just the freeway to perdition.
7
There was a system that eliminated all the evils of our current primaries. Tthe candidates selected by the national conventions.
There was no endless campaigning, a vastly smaller influence of money, and those choosing the candidates knew the candidates.
I know; it was so old fashioned and un-democratic. But there was no ridiculous non-stop campaigning, and it worked pretty well. In 1944, they knew FDR was dying and his vice President, Henry Wallace, was too Socialist and weird to lead us. So they gave us Harry Truman.
That kind of thing can't happen today. Instead of standing on their heads to prevent us getting a hopelessly flawed leader, all the campaigns work non-stop to prevent us from even knowing. Until it's too late.
The new isn't necessarily better than the old. Sometimes it's just the freeway to perdition.
2
I too look forward to the results and analysis, however debates do serve a purpose and prepare the debaters for the national stage. I am paying attention right now and I find my candidate preference shifts a bit after each debate. I am looking forward to a winnowed Democratic field and believe debate performance as well as grass roots organizing are valuable tools to help me make my decision.
1
Hooray for this! Anyone who is inclined to do so can find fault with this proposed system, but it is far better than the present method, for the reasons the writer has pointed out.
6
End the winner take all delegates in primaries, and force candidates to go to their conventions without a majority of delegates. Make the Conventions great again.
3
@Steve
...And get rid of super-delegates.
Some of what is suggested here sounds like Sortition: a RANDOM selection of citizens to serve a single, specified term in a legislative body (city council, state legislature, the U.S. Senate). As I understand the concept, the selected group must be distributed evenly among gender identification. Other than that, the hoped for outcome is that the representation is an accurate sampling of the region or population.
Though, at the moment, it would seem unlikely this would ever be supported by Congress, I think this would be a much better way to represent ourselves.
The primary election process is arguably the optimum place to implement election reform in our representative selection system. It is in the primaries where our choices are drastically narrowed down to a very small number of options. If primary elections are restructured to produce candidates who are more intelligent, capable of working collaboratively with opponents, and can reach out to new voters with consensus ideas, then there would be an improved chance of electing representatives that do not polarize and paralyze our political system.
The deliberative choice notion is not the only potentially positive way to improve the primary process. Moving to an "Approval Voting" system would weed out candidates that are perceived as nefarious and promoting bad policy. Ranked choice voting is another potential improvement to the electoral process. Arguably, one significant problem with our current national elected representatives is that extreme polarization is preventing significant advancement in solving problems where the rational approach should be compromise and cooperation. Change the primaries, and we will change the ideological commitment of those representatives.
1
Interesting experiment. It is based on a fatal flaw though, as it assumed that political opinion and voter decisions are based on information, debate, rationality, science.
At least for a part of the electorate, and possibly a pretty large part, that might not be the case, they'll stick to hatred, feeling, faith or dogma for their voting decisions.
13
It is not clear this is the absolute best way to make our democracy more intelligent, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. I look forward to seeing its results.
6
@Let's Be Honest
Let’s be honest? The US is NOT a democracy. If it were, President Hillary would be the boss.
Let’s get rid of the democracy myth!
2
How refreshing. Having been on the receiving end of passionate diatribes which escalated when I tried to inject another point of view, I applaud the effort. If only the communities of presidential primary entrants and supporting politicians could be persuaded to do something similar, and publish the results. But instead of compromise, our elections look like a long drawn-out court litigation, with no judge to enforce rules and decorum...
3
Certainly a flawed process and not a cure-all, but this can make a useful contribution to the discussion. The debates, primaries, etc. also have flaws. I look forward to reading about this after the event takes place.
3
I have been "saying" for years that the primaries should no longer be stretched out over months with the early voting states eliminating potential candidates based on polls and how much money a candidate has raised.
I propose that the primary elections be held on one day, the same day in every state, like the general election. For example, the first Tuesday in June or better yet on a weekend day (and that goes for the general election also) or make election days a holiday in all states of the nation.
Which ever candidate from each party obtains the highest votes becomes the parties nominee for President. Eliminate the wasteful conventions and also eliminate the Electoral College.
The notion that the candidates will skip over campaigning in the less populated states is a misnomer. As it is today, the less populated states are campaigned in more often than in the more populous states. And although the less populated states believe that eliminating the Electoral College will cause our representatives and President to ignore their state is baloney, as even with the electoral process as it exists today and past decades, the less populated states have been ignored all these years anyway. That's why these states have more unemployment and poverty than the more populous states.
5
@Fred M -
I completely agree. My only addition would be that all states allow early voting (there are always people who have to work), and that it is easily accessible to everyone (no closing precincts in minority neighborhoods).
6
Better to write in Bernie and stand for our Democracy then bow to a DNC and Media controlled election.
Is one form of dictatorship different than the other? Trump corporate Dynasty or DNC and corporations!
Now we must take back the control of our vote, sadly, within our own party and also from the corporate media.
Write in Bernie, if we must. Together, Sanders/Warren will certainly stop the Trump control. Almost 3 million people already voted for them with their donations. More than any other candidate. With Biden we loose the young, the real future of our country. Just look at the following 16 year old Greta Thunberg has, a true inspiration, not a Svengali spell like Trump creates.
All
2
@s.whether: People like you went third party in protest to what you believe about the Democratic Party. How do you like Trump so far? For better or worse, we are a two party system. Liberals who vote third party are helping Trump get reelected.
1
Two things will help:
First, eliminate the live audiences in the "debates".
Second, national primaries.
The first would moderate the discourse and the second would bring the discourse to all the people. The primary system is as broken as is the Electoral College.
3
@Joe: So you are OK with Presidential candidates that are selected in secret? Where does democracy belong in your plan?
“Policy experts with a variety of views”. Let me add that the policy experts should disclose the tax returns so we know where they earn their living and how their paychecks are made possible.
15
This article makes it sound as if BOTH sides have legitimate points of view. That's known as false equivalency. The MSM is guilty of promoting it, as if it were objective. It is not. The extremist right-wing point of view is illegitimate, in a democracy, and thus unworthy of debate. There is such a thing as absolute right and wrong. The extremist right-wing point of view is absolutely WRONG. So is the so-called extremist left wing point of view, although I know of nobody who is promoting it, at this time. The extreme right-wing position is prominent in the Republican party. It's exactly why that party is about to implode. Personally, I will never negotiate, cooperate, or debate with extremists of any point of view. All of us have to decide which side we are on, not sitting on the fence. I'm on the side of social democracy, not greedy, destructive autocracy.
42
Indeed, this is why—as in nature—every system seeks equilibrium, a balance of extremes. We should strive to find the common ground.
To accomplish this with some permanence, we must begin by acknowledging the outward bounds, however inherently “wrong” they may be. If we ignore those extremes, or discredit them, they simply won’t go away; they will fester and build, and become an even greater challenge.
5
@ChesBay
No one is arguing that actual White nationalists or the KKK have a seat at the table. That's a bit of a strawman. Obviously, no one who argues that a human being of a different race has less intrinsic value solely due to their genetic makeup would be given a plafform.
But, does the idea of border security have a place in the discussion? How about cutting corporate taxes? Welfare reform? You may not like these issues, but they are issues worth discussing. And, they're issues of importance to many on the Right.
1
" Most voters are still barely paying attention to the campaign. It has too many candidates, too many complex issues and too many weaponized interpretations of who might be too young or too old, who committed a gaffe or who had a strong one-liner in debates where time permits few real exchanges on the issues."
I was not aware that there was more than one candidate!
His name is Donald Trump.
1
@Doug McDonald And therein lies your problem.
A rose by any other name...
This experiment is no experiment at all. Beginning with the false premise that the 5 topics of interest "according to polls" are actually the top 5 topics of interest. If polls are insufficient to select a candidate, how can we expect them to be sufficient to select topics of importance? The group itself, like a jury, must be free to decide itself, without media influence (polling) or external forces, what issues are of importance. THEN you'll have a more true representation of America. A representation of Quinnipiac or Harris or CNN is NOT, as we've seen all too often, a representation of America.
7
To answer the question, “Why not employ this at the start of our presidential race?”, there are no good reasons not to do this absent better information, simply obstacles.
Where does the funding come from?
How is it made into a standard that moves from a good idea to practice, then onward to a requirement?
What are the shortcomings in terms of bias (The bias that is actually present and potentially manipulated in everyday human experience)?
The better, less biased, and more fully inclusive version of the effort to employ today is also what we need to seek to devise and employ for tomorrow.
When were you going to tell us about the 108 times deliberate polling has taken place since 1994? Who decided what sort of information participants were given to study. How long were they given to analyze it? What sort of questions were they asked to answer to determine consensus? Were any minds changed? I am still angry after reading that the president was talking in the WH about buying Greenland for about a year before you dropped his trees on us. The press will keep the horse race scenario till Trump is reflected in a landslide.
Actually, by and large we delegate the nomination process to Iowa and NH. Two states that represent a very small sample of the country decide the primary race to a large extent. Simultaneous primaries across the country would give all the states a voice in the primaries, yes?
19
And the political base, that drives primaries and thrives on partisan "news" from their social media feeds will be impressed how exactly?
I already hear the call "fake news" drifting in the wind.
1
Why not have ALL primaries, for ALL states, on the same day 3 to 6 months before the General Election with the winner being the winner of the popular vote nationally. It would force all the primary candidates to campaign everywhere and make every vote matter.
12
Whatever may be the number of Democratic candidates, what should matter to the electorate must be where these candidates stand exactly in matters pertaining to the health care, child care, maternity and paternity leave, minimum national wage policy, employment and educational policy including affordability of colleges primarily, college loans and then comes issues like foreign policy etc.
A simple research on the background of these candidates will make things pretty clear to the electorate.
1
@Sivaram Pochiraju: The primary consideration for this lifelong Democrat is whether the candidate can get elected not whether I agree 1000 percent with the Democratic candidate on all issues.
This misses the point that primaries are our worst enemies of democracy because they disenfranchise vast numbers of voters. Far better to have a two-stage election with all qualified candidates in the first round, the top two in the second to guarantee a majority. No closed elections or caucuses.
5
@Bruce Williams
What nonsense.
Primaries do not disenfranchise voters. People who fail to register to vote disenfranchise themselves.
What part of allowing voters from each party deciding who should represent them do you not understand?
2
The primary debates by and large aren't debates. They are simultaneous press conferences. They also include a fair amount of "gotcha" from the "moderators" (raise your hand if...) whose goal is audience shock and titillation, not issue clarification.
33
Yes, certainly shock and titillation but also manipulation to make people think that things like Medicare for All, universal daycare, paid maternity/paternity leave, ending all military involvement in Afghanistan and the Middle East, using diplomacy and compromise rather than drones and threats, and ending all subsidies to fossil fuel companies and imposing stringent taxes on all fossil fuel production with subsidies only going to renewables etc are much too radical to take seriously.
6
@Neal Actually they have become another way for the networks to sell advertising...
3
Here's a modest proposal: no primaries or caucuses at all.
Imagine a world in which political parties are integrated entities able to find a coherent strategy for fielding candidates at all levels, not just holding beauty contests for potential POTUS candidates. Imagine policies that make sense instead of being engineered for curb-appeal by candidates who are quite aware they have no chance of implementing those policies without support in the legislature.
I'm always struck by two things about the first half of the 20th century: the politics of smoke-filled rooms, and the so-called Greatest Generation.
1
The "smoke filled room" (updated to non-smoking) was a better way to select candidates than the primary system. Party elders were more likely to avoid extremist candidates and that was the way the best Democratic candidates were selected. (And we won more!)
4
@Daedalus: So you want the selection of the candidates to be done behind closed doors by people who probably have their own agenda? That is not Democracy.
@Jeff
Having an agenda is what a political party is about. If the members are so foolish as to elect leaders whose interests conflict with their own, that's their problem.
Hmmmmm, sound like super-delegates.
When primaries became "elections", it empowered the fringes of both parties. First the Republicans and now the democrats.
We need to return to the principle that party leaders *select* their candidates based on who can win the *general* election, not this principle that we *elect* leaders who can win *primary* elections.
1
I once heard the late German Chancellor Helmuth Schmidt say that his ideal form of screening presidential candidates would be to have them appear before audiences representing different constituencies (farmers, teachers, small business owners, medical professionals, retirees, etc.) and answer impromptu questions from the assembled crowd.
This would be a sure way to see who was well informed and who was good at being persuasive and yet non-alienating.
7
The carefully selected number of people would undoubtedly be informed and reasonable persons and would, in theory, come to some sort of agreement or compromise. However, their conclusions are pretty much guaranteed not to be aligned with the sentiments of the voters at large. Divisions in politics are inevitable because we have different ideas on the importance of individual issues and feel that ours are reasonable while the others are secondary or even harmful. The problem does not reside in the nature of the debates, but in the fact that a huge number of people are barely interested or perhaps even unable, to comprehend the relevance of proposed policies which makes them prone to follow their instincts or their predispositions. In debates only the general outlines of programs can be presented. The details that are often asked in debates cannot be given in a 60 second answer. The only really meaningful way would be to have a n in depth interview with each candidate directed by experts in each of the fields to be discussed.
Now, I ask, how many voters would be willing to sit through five ix or more such interviews to arrive at an informed opinion.
3
How can it be a representative sample? Doesn't it only allow for folks who can take four days away from their lives (jobs, dependents, other responsibilities) to participate in something like this? Even if they provide compensation, lots of people just don't have the time.
22
Seems like a waste of time in our wildly divided nation.
I remember how well my discussions/complaints about strict parental policies went with my parents.
Not.
As a way to moderate people's views, it is a good idea to bring them into groups with mixed political views. I believe some years ago there was a Yale study along these lines. Talking is always good. However, the purpose of sampling is to extrapolate the findings to the population. In this "sample" the elements will no longer be representative of the population from which they were drawn. As a polling method, it will be seriously flawed because of the extra information given to them and the opportunity to talk to each other. This method of "polling" will likely yield very distorted and inaccurate results because of sample tampering.
1
Lets see, there would be 500 citizen, representative of a broad cross section of America. They could review a common set of briefing papers reviewed by experts. They would then be able to discuss and debate the key issues. Am I missing something but isn't that what CONGRESS is supposed to do or am I being idealistic
87
@Bob
Members of Congress represent Americans. But, based upon how they get elected, it’s a stretch to think that they are representative of Americans.
14
@Bob idealistic. congress runs on bribes which determines 'rational' positions on issues
3
The "briefing papers" that will be presented to the attendees are key. They really need to be neutral towards all the issues that will be discussed. If that doesn't happen, the attitudes that come in the room will likely be the same ones that leave. Having received an invitation to attend the event, I'm trying to go in with an open mind, and try to understand the other point of view. I'll let you know how that works.
22
This already happens. Candidates speak directly to voters and answer questions. It’s called a town hall. Voters have information from experts on the major challenges we have. Just read a book or tune into C-SPAN. You can get different opinions from talk to neighbors or getting outside your bubble. If your issue is with the way the elections are covered like a horse race then your beef is with the press, not the primary process.
6
The term "balanced briefing materials" sets off an alarm in my mind. The solution to climate change is not found in balanced briefing materials. It's found in facts. Setting out to debate CC merely creates a fog machine. It's difficult to even imagine briefing papers on an array of important issues that, if based on facts and policy results, would actually exclude many conservative policy positions. Supply side economics? Tax cuts for the wealthy? Rolling back environmental protections for water and air? Restoring coal mining? The self-serving, flexible GOP attitude about deficit spending? Plus, it's the Hoover Institution.
25
@Judith Krieger
Good points. Far too often "balanced", to journalists and pollsters , means forcing false equivalencies between fact and lie.
4
@Judith Krieger - Hard to have a balanced paper on Global Warming, since the Republican stance is to ignore science and deny it's happening, or deny that it has to do with release of CO2. Basically, the deniers will pull one study with uncertain results out of thousands and say "See, it's not proved!" -- refusing, meanwhile, to look at the total evidence.
1
It will be interesting to see what kind of press coverage deliberative polling events receive. Reporters seem to prefer covering the horse race more than reporting on substance. I would be surprised if deliberative polling received coverage proportionate to that given to the horse race polls.
5
It sounds like they're sending these people on a "Focus Group Vacation" where all of their basic needs will be taken care of.
Place to stay, food, and a "job" (at least for 1 weekend) that provides compensation AND purpose. I'd be shocked if, in such a situation, there wasn't more consensus than discord.
But how will those running the experiment attempt to mimic real world variable in their political science lab? Will the price of sandwiches at lunch be dependent on how much income one earns? Will they send in a police officer to harass certain participants as they go from one conference room to the next? How many people in the room will represent the voice of giant corporate interests? Will participants be allowed to choose their own sleeping quarters and meeting rooms filled with people who look, think, and dress the same as they do?
9
An oh yes, where will this meeting be held?
I suggest Kalispell Montana, or Cody, Wyoming. I've been to both places ... the invitees can then go on a nice vacation.
I also suggest that at least 34% of the people invited live in a place where getting there by air requires at least two stops.
Otherwise, I suspect that results will be tilted left.
Ah, we have almost reached Issac Asimov's "Franchise".
4
Well meant but delusional.
17
America is not a country. America is a continent.
2
@Graham
Yes.
I think US citizens are so self involved that the do not stop to think that Canadians, Mexicans... are all Americans, too.
As uneasy as I am about using the term Americans to refer just to people living in the US, that does seem to be the accepted meaning.
no need to start with a hypothetical when everyone agrees they were a mess
We are inundated these days with talking heads whose job is to make money for the companies they work for by increasing the size of their audience. They do so by being outrageous, inflammatory, superficial, using stereotypes and by dividing people into their various tribes. They are agitators who are very much like someone yelling fire in a crowded theater. They keep us always on edge and occasionally make us panic. The sad result is that, as long as they continue agitating the public, we are not going to act like a civil, homogenous country of fellow citizens.
17
@ehillesum The old maxim “follow the money” is at the heart of the problem. There are too many people and groups who make a lot of money in the current system. As long as they can profit by this mess we will see our democracy eroded.
1
This smacks of a pipe dream. Of course, experts can craft all sorts of rational ways of nominating candidates. But politics is messy because democracy is messy.
7
I agree with one Tuesday election/primary day. Let's leave it alone. Paper ballots. And reliable paid neighbors running the polls. I voted for the first time when I was 21. My folks were waiting for me on our front porch. We drove to the green American Legion Hall (our polling spot)and as I walked in, everybody in the Hall knew this was my first time.
4
While I applaud the academic exercise of finding a better debate format, there are several practicalities that are ignored. Among them is the fact that the audience participants are not a representation of true audiences. Random samples, no matter how contrived rarely represent actual voting percentages. We have seen, over and over again, that some groups vote in higher or lower percentages than others, therefor carrying greater or lesser weight with candidates and consequently affecting outcomes. A "decisions are made by those who show up" mentality should be taught to everyone, so that everyone shows up; to participate in debates, and to vote in primaries and elections. Want to make debates and elections better? Make sure voting districts are not drawn to represent any one group, but accurately and equally represent a population.
1
There is a better way to do Primaries. It is having one universal primary on the first Tuesday in April in all 50 states and US Territories. Then the parties can have their conventions in July/August and as we all know the GE in November.
46
@Jean-Paul Marat > That would also take some of the money out of politics.
1
Indeed, we can and ought to have a serious conversation about our differences in a respectful way...provided it is based on the truth, and the reality as is. But go tell the current cadre of republican-friendy Fox Noise (for instance) to stop distorting things, Trumpian style, where the truth is what they say it is, oblivious to the facts? Quite frankly, as long as Ethics isn't allowed to show up, and prudence (doing what's right, however difficult) is kept locked away, I see no easy way to solve our differences. Having a sea of information available for the asking, why is it that our knowledge is lacking in reason and common sense;even less so in our understanding of the issues, and even less in the department of wisdom to solve what seems a 'Gordian knot'?
1
Not sure the problem is with the people. Don't we have a national consensus about gun control but nothing gets done?
There are fundamental flaws in our democracy which attempt to preserve minority viewpoints but enable them to block majority action. It may be we have to codify the norms of our civil society and culture and then exclude certain types of activities or policies which do not represent the majority view of most Americans. We may glorify our constitutional rights to say and do almost anything while the ship sinks further in the mud. Maybe as an addendum to the Bill of Rights we should have a Bill of Ethics...that defines democracy more narrowly.
31
Will the public who reads these pages also have an opportunity to read the "balanced briefing papers" which the event participants will be studying in advance of the sessions?
43
@Betsy - The article already answered that: yes.
@Betsy - Sorry, it wasn't the article but if you visit the link you will see the answer: 'A1R provides this group with nonpartisan briefing materials (which will be made publicly available ahead of the event) on the five main issues of the 2020 presidential cycle—the economy, the environment, foreign policy, health care, and immigration...'
Just the suggestion that there could be multiple “Republican candidates” engaged in such a process is very refreshing.
9
@Bailey Actually, there were multiple Republican candidates in 2016. Look who they came up with.
1