Data

General Issues
Governance & Political Institutions
Specific Topics
Youth Issues
Political Parties
Public Participation
Location
Washington
District of Columbia
United States
Scope of Influence
National
Start Date
End Date
Ongoing
No
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Develop the civic capacities of individuals, communities, and/or civil society organizations
Research
Approach
Research
Spectrum of Public Participation
Not applicable or not relevant
Total Number of Participants
680
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Limited to Only Some Groups or Individuals
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Stratified Random Sample
Targeted Demographics
Youth
Students
General Types of Methods
Deliberative and dialogic process
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Collect, analyse and/or solicit feedback
Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
Recruit or select participants
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
Yes
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Information & Learning Resources
Written Briefing Materials
Expert Presentations
Decision Methods
Not Applicable
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Public Report
Primary Organizer/Manager
The Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University
Evidence of Impact
Yes
Types of Change
Changes in people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavior
Implementers of Change
Lay Public
Experts

CASE

America in One Room: The Youth Vote

October 23, 2024 rickyhmwork
October 2, 2024 rickyhmwork
September 30, 2024 rickyhmwork
September 28, 2024 rickyhmwork
September 26, 2024 rickyhmwork
September 12, 2024 rickyhmwork
General Issues
Governance & Political Institutions
Specific Topics
Youth Issues
Political Parties
Public Participation
Location
Washington
District of Columbia
United States
Scope of Influence
National
Start Date
End Date
Ongoing
No
Time Limited or Repeated?
A single, defined period of time
Purpose/Goal
Develop the civic capacities of individuals, communities, and/or civil society organizations
Research
Approach
Research
Spectrum of Public Participation
Not applicable or not relevant
Total Number of Participants
680
Open to All or Limited to Some?
Limited to Only Some Groups or Individuals
Recruitment Method for Limited Subset of Population
Stratified Random Sample
Targeted Demographics
Youth
Students
General Types of Methods
Deliberative and dialogic process
General Types of Tools/Techniques
Collect, analyse and/or solicit feedback
Facilitate dialogue, discussion, and/or deliberation
Recruit or select participants
Legality
Yes
Facilitators
Yes
Face-to-Face, Online, or Both
Face-to-Face
Types of Interaction Among Participants
Discussion, Dialogue, or Deliberation
Information & Learning Resources
Written Briefing Materials
Expert Presentations
Decision Methods
Not Applicable
Communication of Insights & Outcomes
Public Report
Primary Organizer/Manager
The Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University
Evidence of Impact
Yes
Types of Change
Changes in people’s knowledge, attitudes, and behavior
Implementers of Change
Lay Public
Experts

America in One Room: The Youth Vote was a national experiment for first-time voters using deliberative polling on energy and the environment, the economy, AI, and taxes, health care, and democracy and elections.

Problems and Purpose

On the weekend of July 19-22, 2024, a scientific sample of first-time voters from communities all over the country was convened in Washington, D.C. to deliberate major policy issues ahead of the 2024 presidential election. Participants in both the control group as well as those who took part in the process of Deliberative Polling were selected for by stratified random sampling and received balanced briefing materials prior to the event. Over the course of the two days, participants discussed the issues and candidates in moderated small group sessions with questions directed to a panel of experts during plenary sessions.

Deliberations covered a wide range of issues prevalent in the 2024 presidential election falling under four main branches: Energy and the Environment, The Economy, AI, and Taxes, Health Care, and Democracy and Elections. The proposals discussed are incredibly relevant in national politics. This overview examines the quantitative changes in policy proposal preferences among both treatment and control groups, which were collected by questionnaires given before and after deliberation.

The deliberations resulted in youth voters with greater mutual respect, sense of efficacy, and satisfaction with democracy—ultimately 89% of those who participated in deliberative polling agreed with the conclusion that “I learned a lot about people very different from me—about what they and their lives are like.”

Participant Recruitment and Selection

Both the control group and treatment group were drawn by Generation Lab from stratified random sampling of the nation’s 30,000 high schools, which was then refined based on race, gender, geographical location, and socioeconomic status in order to maintain as representative as possible based on available census data. The scientific sample resulted in two treatment groups consisting of first-time voters from communities across the nation—red, blue, urban, rural. The control group consisted of 250 young voters, while 430 participants in the treatment group convened in Washington, D.C. for deliberative polling. Both groups received pre-treatment questionnaires and post-treatment questionnaires. 

Methods and Tools Used

Deliberative Polling aims to analyze how a voter’s view on policy issues would change if they could learn about these issues under balanced conditions. These balanced conditions include exposure to briefing materials containing relevant facts and representing arguments and perspectives from both sides, deliberation in small groups of peers with trained moderators, the opportunity to hear from and ask questions of panels of diverse policy experts, and the ability to register their opinions in confidential questionnaires.

Representative samples of the population which consider demographics including political affiliation and geographical location are selected to participate in these Deliberative Polls, which allow statistical inferences to be made about how public opinion of the whole population would change if they too could deliberate. Deliberative Polling was first proposed by Professor James Fishkin in 1988, and have been conducted more than 150 times in more than 50 countries and jurisdictions across the world by the Center for Deliberative Democracy at Stanford University and partner organizations.

What Went On: Process, Interaction, and Participation

Delegates were given a Briefing Booklet as well as briefing videos with executive summaries on each of the main issues, as well as arguments for and against each policy proposal. The Briefing Booklet was prepared and vetted by policy experts from both parties in order to ensure balanced presentation of information. Participants then deliberated the policy proposals in small, moderated groups in four key areas: energy and the environment, the economy, AI, and taxes, health care, and democracy and elections. These issues were determined to be the most important to young voters in the current election cycle by a national survey conducted by Generation Lab in May. After the small group deliberations, participants had the opportunity to attend plenary sessions and ask experts questions about the proposals that came up during the deliberations. 

Energy and the Environment

The deliberation on energy and the environment focused on climate action, energy independence, and environmental protection. Deliberators were greatly committed to concerted climate action and surprisingly became more supportive of energy independence following the deliberation. After the deliberation there was overwhelming support for achieving net-zero and increasing government funding for clean energy technology and battery storage solutions, as well as new-generation nuclear energy. Increased support for energy independence occurred over all three political parties: Republican support increased from 62% to 79%, Independents from 66% to 77%, and Democrats from 62% to 75%. While support for environmental protection policies increased, opposition to banning the sale of new gas and diesel cars and energy use restrictions also increased across the board following deliberation.

The Economy, AI, and Taxes

In general, support for ambitious redistributive policies diminished—in some cases, significantly—following deliberations on the economy, AI, and taxes. For example, support for increasing the federal minimum wage to $15 dropped from 62% to 48%, support for government funding of college tuition at public universities for all students who could not otherwise afford it decreased from 66% to 56%. Changes in support for AI policies emphasized a greater need for transparency and government protection against AI: policies such as “the federal government should prevent the sale or use of biased algorithms” (Q10.6) gained support following deliberation.

Health Care

The deliberation on health care focused on four main areas: the Affordable Care Act, reproductive rights, mental health coverage, and social media. Support for the Affordable Care Act transcended political party lines, and there was increasingly strong support for policies protecting or even expanding the Affordable Care Act. The proposal that “Congress should pass a nationwide ban on medication abortion” (Q 9.4) reached supermajority opposition (78% to 80%). Support for ensuring access to abortion on a national basis also increased from 68% to 73% with Democrats ending at 91%, Independents rising to 79%, and Republicans increasing from 30% to 38%. There was also strong support for expanding insurance coverage to mental health through both incentives and mandates, and in general, none of the proposals regarding social media use among young people failed to gain support.

Democracy and Elections

Results following the democracy and elections deliberations showed increasing satisfaction in democracy in young voters. In general, proposals focused on preventing voter fraud varied in success by method—a proposal to install video monitors at drop boxes to prevent fraud was rejected by both parties, yet a proposal for a paper record of voting machines gained support overall from 56% to 61%. Proposals created to ease voter registration generally accumulated majority support, and proposals regarding national service incentives gained support—with the exception of mandated national service, which failed to gain traction as a proposal.

Influence, Outcomes, and Effects

Through the process of deliberation, participants gained a sense of efficacy, mutual respect, and satisfaction with democracy. Participants rated all of the components of the event highly (70%-90%), 93% for the small group discussions, 79% for the briefing materials, 70% for the plenary sessions with the experts, 96% for the event as a whole. Following the event, 89% of participants agreed with the conclusion that “I learned a lot about people very different from me—about what they and their lives are like.”

References

Materials found at https://deliberation.stanford.edu/results-america-one-room-youth-vote