In 2012 I read about a telephone survey of “Likely U.S. Voters” which reported that 43% of respondents believed a group of “people randomly selected from the phone book would do a better job than the current Congress.”
For a decade or so I have been interested in just that — democratic decision-making processes in which participants are selected by lottery, like juries in our court systems.
I’ve been particularly interested in “citizens’ assemblies” and “deliberative polls,” with hopes that they might help to improve our struggling democracies.
But I’ve never experienced one of those large group processes in person — until recently.
I got my chance to be an observer for four days in Philadelphia at an event called “America in One Room,” watching 175 Pennsylvanians deliberate about immigration, foreign policy, education, health, housing and other polarizing political issues.
The experience convinced me that ordinary Americans, randomly selected by lottery, are capable of thoughtful discussion and decision-making without the nastiness of electoral politics.
The Philadelphia Inquirer reported that in the survey the participants take before the “America in One Room” experiment in Philadelphia 75% of participants said they were dissatisfied with American democracy.
In the same survey taken after the event that number decreased to 54%.
And by the end of the event 91% of participants said they respected opposing viewpoints, compared with 72% beforehand.
I observed breakout group #7, one of the small groups where participants spent most of their times discussing issues — when not in large group sessions where a variety of experts responded to their questions.
The small groups discussed and decided which questions to ask the experts.
Research shows that people mostly disregard new information and refuse to change their minds.
But that’s not what happened in group #7.
I saw people at least willing to consider other people’s arguments, moving toward each other in their thinking and on occasion outright changing their minds.
For example a woman abandoned a kooky conspiracy theory when several of her fellow group members explained why it wasn’t true.
I think the reason she accepted their facts was that she had developed friendships and trust.
She had, in effect, joined a new group.
Each day I saw relationships flower within the group until, on the fourth and final day, the participants wanted each other’s contact information to keep in touch.
I suspect that the vigorous debate in the respectful atmosphere of the small group is what created the group’s feelings of connectedness and social cohesion.
I heard that there was one occasion in one of the other breakout groups when the moderator asked two angry participants to step out into the hallway to settle themselves down.
But I understand that is a rarity at these events.
From what I could observe of group #7, each day people became more hopeful and positive about their experience.
Please take a quick look at the three-minute video I made with some of the participants’ comments immediately following the event.
