Photo of book cover from: https://global.oup.com/academic/product/hope-for-democracy-9780190084523?cc=us&lang=en&

I attended the presentation on “Writing Hope for Democracy: Translating a Decade of Deliberation” in Willard Building on February 8th, 2020. The event was hosted by the college of Communication Arts and Sciences, and it was ultimately led by two people, John Gastil and Katherine Knobloch. John works here at Penn State now, but Katherine was one of his doctoral students a few years ago. Upon meeting and working together, they decided to collaborate on a project of their own in measuring and researching democratic deliberation across the country. Katherine discussed how during her years in academia, she has watched how this country has alienated the regular citizen in its democratic practices. She has done extensive community engagement work to investigate this phenomenon and work to include more citizens into the political process, and she and John have taken extensive data on many attempted scenarios of new democratic deliberation across the country. However, they recognize that social scientific methods do not provide a one way roadmap. That is why, together, they have written a narrative nonfiction book called Hope for Democracy on how to tap down on hyper-partisanship and get the everyday citizen back into politics.

In terms of inspiration, the Citizen’s Jury that began in the 1970s and ultimately intervened in Pennsylvania senate’s race proved to be an introductory example of what could come from citizen reviews, but ultimately, it was not super successful because of how it was conducted through the government. The question then arose, what if the citizens came to a conclusion about a topic, and used that information to educate voters for an upcoming election? 

The central example that Katherine and John discussed during the lecture was the creation of Citizens’ Initiative Reviews, also known as CIRs, in order to involve more citizens into the political process. The first few took place in Oregon and Seattle, and the process of the review took 3 total steps. It began with taking a stratified sample of the area, proceeding with a four day deliberation, and finally, publishing a statement to be distributed to other citizens. The statement would be for voters to use when casting their own votes, and it would consist of arguments for and against the measure at hand. From the experience, there were some difficulties that arose, but Katherine and John were careful to take note of what could come from these obstacles. For example, it proved to be difficult writing a single statement as a committee after key findings were discussed. Creating a cohesive piece of text to be interpreted by the voter was a challenge. However, a final statement was read to a handful of reporters in front of the state capitol. In reflecting after the fact, panelists recognized that they had talked and learned a lot about the issue through the deliberation process. Perhaps, these new facets to democracy could really work and involve citizen discussion and improve voter education.

Most CIR panelists reported being highly satisfied with the CIR process, and they felt that they had been treated with respect. John and Katherine began testifying on the observations/work they had done. Ultimately, the CIR was signed into law in 2011, and is now a permanent part in Oregon’s governing process. Its ability to inform the electorate can have a huge impact in the area through its delivery to citizens in the official voter guide produced by the state.

Since the CIR has been implemented, data shows that voters’ choices usually move in tandem with CIR panelists’ support for measure. Additionally, CIR statements have a modest positive effect on voters’ issue knowledge. After reading the CIR Statement, voters report being more likely to vote on that issue. All of these statistics were delivered during the lecture via graphics that John and Katherine created to share their findings. I really bought into the idea that these processes have potential to regain people’s faith in democracy because voters will feel like they are given opportunities to be unbiasedly educated on issues that are on the ballot.

Since they have been implemented, however, CIRs have not been foolproof. Funding is scarce, and there are a handful of advocates who clearly still hope to kill the process. They steadily plug along, often hopping a number of hurdles to get their information onto voter guides regardless. Also, Pilot CIRS have been conducted in states across the country, not just in Oregon, and Finland and Switzerland have pilot-tested a few just this year. Their goal of seeking to directly empower the public is resonating with certain groups and spreading to others around the world. 

The story that Katherine and John presented through this lecture is just one example of deliberative democracy movements taking place in this country. There are institutional barriers, hurdles, marginalization that can feel overwhelming when trying to make steps like this. However, there is still hope in their book and from the CIRs that have made progress across the country. To me, the most inspiring part of the talk is the fact that this growing democratic movement started with a group of graduate students. A story of grad students is changing the world! I left the lecture holding a message to have hope and seize our agency in everything that we do. Though sometimes it feels like only baby steps are being made, it is stories like this that create big change and make it into history books. I am so glad I attended the lecture, and I would love for Citizen Initiative Reviews to make it to the East Coast and become a staple for local governments.