Disclaimer: Our views do not necessarily represent those of Stanford University, Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab, or affiliated organizations.
By: Shao Ming Lee and Siya Verma
As the 2024 Presidential contest heats up, divisions between candidates and their voters are on full display; the political mudslinging has begun. Yet, incessant coverage of this bonanza overlooks a recent experiment that paints a uniquely optimistic picture of democracy. Held in June 2023, the America in One Room (A1R): Democratic Reform deliberative poll saw a nationally representative sample of 600 Americans coming together virtually to deliberate on democratic reform (think voter access, electoral college reform, etc.). Its results point to an unlikely place of hope in these unprecedented times.
Organized by Helena, “a global problem-solving organization,” that conducts political experiments among other initiatives, and Stanford University’s Deliberative Democracy Lab (DDL), this deliberation was the third America in One Room (A1R) to be conducted. The first was held in 2019, with a follow-up focusing on climate issues held in 2021 – both yielding encouraging results. As with previous installments, participants were given well-balanced briefing materials and deliberated in small groups of eight to twelve people. Panels of experts, spanning the political spectrum, were also called upon to answer participants’ questions.
The experiment produced drastic opinion changes, especially when compared to a control group that did not undergo any deliberation. In stark contrast to the narrative of intransigent political polarization, deliberators on all sides of the political spectrum came significantly closer to agreement on many contentious issues.
There was significant depolarization on issues of voting rights, election security, and ballot access. However, after the study concluded, Republican support for online voter registration increased from 30% to 50%, and by 23% for restoring voting rights for felons. This group also came to be increasingly skeptical of the claim that increased opportunities for voter registration led to greater voter fraud.
Democrats also came to embrace some traditionally “conservative” positions. For example, Democratic support for post-election audits of randomly selected ballots increased from 14% to 58%. Many also came to support paper records for voting machines, from 44% to 55%.
Not all issues saw partisan reconciliation. While there was widespread agreement on the imperfections of current political institutions, participants nevertheless diverged on certain proposed solutions. Only 29% of deliberators wanted to preserve the Electoral College system, but Democrats and Republicans differed significantly on a proposed constitutional amendment to replace it with a popular vote, with only 27% of the latter supporting it compared to 61% for Democrats. Similarly, there was overwhelming support (88%) to subject Supreme Court Justices to the same ethical standards as federal judges, but Republicans were far more circumspect in their support for 18-year term limits.
Nevertheless, the deliberations helped bridge at least some divides on more controversial issues, bringing the public closer together than before. Republican support for ranked-choice voting for primaries in both state and congressional elections, while below a majority, still increased significantly post-deliberation. And, Democrats nearly doubled their support for a constitutional amendment to preserve the Supreme Court’s composition to nine justices.
So, despite these remaining divisions, the conclusions are clear: Americans can listen to and agree with each other on many issues, or at the very least come much closer than before. While there is still progress to be made in coming to a real consensus on specific solutions, proof of increased support across partisan divisions for many issues and proposals points to the powerful ability of respectful, balanced deliberation. In such contexts, the cacophony of mass media and politicians’ tweets make way for empathy and reason.
What’s more remarkable is that this experiment took place entirely virtually on the Stanford Online Deliberation Platform, a collaboration between DDL and the Stanford Crowdsourced Democracy Team. As research assistants at the lab, we’ve seen the platform in action and how its plethora of tools, including AI, ensure that conversations between perfect strangers are respectful and fair. But, don’t just take our word for it: 91% of participants agreed that the platform provided opportunities for everyone to participate. The successes of online deliberation have huge implications for scalability. June’s experiment saw 600 participants; a future iteration could see thousands more.
After their deliberations, numerous participants expressed surprise and gratitude at the civil nature of the conversations. The fact that civil discussion amongst fellow citizens was seen as unusual underscores the degree to which Americans have perceived each other as polarized, as one participant put it, “yelling and cussing at each other” in their leadership was the norm. There is no doubt that this sentiment is common across America; trust in an ever-polarized government is at historic lows. However, this experiment shows that Americans don’t have to follow in the footsteps of government and can leave the yelling and cussing behind. They can take comfort in trusting the democratic potential of each other instead.
The Roar 