Imagine a country where the people are so slow that a 1990 science poll found that half the adults weren't sure whether the sun revolved around the earth or the earth revolved around the sun. Now imagine that this same country has a system of government that not only bases its policies on the stupid things that those people say, but subtly encourages them to remain stupid about those same policy issues.

Surprise! It's Canada!

That's right. Think of it: our government, in its wisdom, hires a polling firm to find out what we think of (say) global warming. Joe Blo knows all the stats of his favorite hockey team, but can't tell the difference between a methane molecule and a giraffe. The polling firm relates Joe's opinions back to the appropriate government minister, and then that minister thinks up some suitably lame policy based on it. No wonder our various Liberal and Conservative governments have never really gotten serious about the issue.

Well, of course, one can easily see that if our system of governance continues on its sorry course, idiotic decision-making will eventually strangle the country (and I'm not being partisan here; any party that puts short-term popularity ahead of reasoned dialogue is simply digging a grave over the long term...its own and our's).

Deliberative polling is not a panacea. Other changes to our system of governance are also needed (the litany of thoughtful suggestions is already out there, so I shouldn't have to repeat anything). However, a change in polling methods will not only give politicians a more stable and reasoned basis for their decision-making; it may also introduce a general change in the culture of politics. If people from all backgrounds can gather together in a deliberative poll and calmly discuss important issues, it's conceivable that our overly belligerent leaders may eventually copy the example. And then Question Period in the House of Commons will no longer be an embarrassment to watch.


 

 

 
Now imagine a country where the main media outlets occasionally collaborate to gather a random sampling of its citizens to a central location to discuss a policy issue in depth. We're not talking about a two hour focus group session; we're talking about hundreds of citizens looking at all the ins and outs of a particular issue for a whole week. They have access to "balanced" briefing materials and are allowed to question competing experts.

Prior to the whole exercise, a normal poll is taken, and then at the end another normal poll is taken. And (surprise, surprise) the result changes significantly.

(By the way, the country is Britain, and the media outlets are the BBC and the newspaper, The Independent.)

The exercise is called a "deliberative poll", and if you plug the term into an internet search engine, you'll find lots of interesting stuff.


 

 

 
The Harvard website (one of the links listed) certainly describes the drawbacks of the current system:

"[status quo] opinion polls, which measure the snap judgments of an often inattentive and ill-informed public."

As well:

"Deliberative Polling seeks to create a social environment in which ordinary citizens will be motivated to overcome the tendency toward rational ignorance (the notion that because a single individual’s opinion is unlikely to cast much influence on political decisions it is entirely reasonable to spend little time and effort becoming informed)."

However, the prescription (ie, deliberative polling) is where the heavy emphasis is. And, in fact, the prescription is taken one step further, since the main investigation on the web-page is concerned with the possibility of doing deliberative polling on the internet (certainly a lot more efficient than physically gathering folks together from widely varied locations in the country).


 

 

 
I think the major cause of society's problems can be blamed on sheer stupidity. Thus, anything which promotes deliberation and dialogue--and which can help to translate the results of such dialogue into policy--can only be positive. Of course, the final decisions will always rest with our elected representatives, but at least they won't be pandering to the lowest common denominator of opinion polls based on the output of brain-dead couch potatoes.

And, of course, the other great benefit is that the general public will become a lot less apathetic and cynical about the whole political process. They will see that their input is being taken seriously, so they'll naturally start to take the output (ie, government policies) seriously. The average person will be less likely to cheat on their taxes, and the angry loners will be less likely to join anti-government militias.