Deliberation: reasoned discussion before a decision

Deliberation is the weighing of reasons, evidence, and other people’s views before reaching a judgment. In democratic theory, deliberation is contrasted with aggregation: instead of only counting preferences, people discuss them and may change them. Deliberative forums such as citizens’ assemblies and deliberative polls put the idea into practice; My Vote Forward is mostly an aggregation tool and says so.

Definition

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy’s entry on democracy describes Joshua Cohen’s view of democracy as a setting where “individuals freely engage in a process of reasoned discussion and deliberation on an equal footing”.⁠¹ On Cohen’s account, citizens justify laws by reasons others can accept; the entry ties this to a “principle of reasonableness,” under which people offer only principles that other reasonable people can accept.⁠¹

Deliberation, as used on this site, has four features: participants consider information, hear views different from their own, give reasons rather than only state positions, and are open to revising their judgment. Discussion that lacks those features (for example, a rally, or a debate where no one may change their mind) is not deliberation in this sense.

Origin and history

Deliberative democracy as a named theory is associated with philosophers including Jürgen Habermas and Joshua Cohen. The Stanford entry describes Jürgen Habermas’s “discourse theory of deliberative democracy,” his principle that “only those statutes may claim legitimacy that can meet with the assent of all citizens,” and his “two-track” model linking formal deliberative bodies with informal discussion in the public sphere.⁠¹ The entry also describes epistemic arguments that democracy “is generally more reliable than alternative methods at producing political decisions,” citing mechanisms such as Condorcet’s Jury Theorem, cognitive diversity, and information sharing.⁠¹

Practical designs followed. Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab reports that James Fishkin originated the Deliberative Poll in 1988 and that such polls “have been conducted over 150 times in over 50 countries and jurisdictions”.⁠² Ireland’s Citizens’ Assembly (2016 to 2018) brought “99 citizens entitled to vote at a referendum,” randomly selected, together with a chair to consider questions including the Eighth Amendment of the Constitution.⁠³

How deliberation is organized and studied

Organized deliberation usually combines:

• Balanced information, such as briefing materials reviewed by people with opposing views.
• Small facilitated groups, where trained moderators keep discussion on reasons and give quieter people time.
• Access to experts and advocates, questioned by participants.
• A recorded outcome, such as recommendations or before-and-after survey responses.

The Deliberative Democracy Lab’s design shows the measurement logic: a random sample is polled, given “carefully balanced briefing materials,” deliberates in “small group discussions with trained moderators,” questions “competing experts and political leaders,” and is then “again asked the original questions”.⁠² Differences between before and after are read as the effect of the deliberative process; separating the effect of new information from the effect of discussion is harder.

Common confusions and neighboring terms

• Deliberation vs. aggregation. Aggregation combines existing preferences (votes, rankings). Deliberation aims to change or refine them first.
• Deliberation vs. debate. A debate aims to win; deliberation aims to reach a better judgment.
• Deliberation vs. consultation. Consultation collects views; it may involve no exchange of reasons at all.
• Deliberation vs. sortition. Sortition is a selection method often paired with deliberation; it is not deliberation itself.

How My Vote Forward uses the term

My Vote Forward is mainly an aggregation framework: it records priorities, opinions, and in principle private votes. It does not claim that its participants deliberate. It can support deliberation indirectly by linking balanced information and separating subjects from proposals, but it treats deliberative forums as a different and complementary practice. The case material is in Cases and the history in Participation between elections.

Unresolved questions

• Can online, asynchronous participation ever achieve the reason-giving that facilitated small groups produce?
• When deliberation changes views, how can observers tell whether the change came from better information or from group pressure?
• Should a priorities system show deliberative forum results alongside participant aggregates, and how should the two be weighted?