CURRENT ONLINE

Photo of participant standing at his seat to question Gore

A participant in the issues convention questions Vice President Gore. (Photo for Current by Mark Matson.)

 

Delegates bond at issues convention in Austin

'We listen and are willing to help each other'

Originally published in Current, Jan. 29, 1996

By Diana Claitor

Austin, Tex. -- PBS and NPR beamed five hours of the National Issues Convention from Austin this month, but the programs didn't capture the most striking achievement of the three-day event: the sense of community and connection that was created among 459 diverse Americans.

These "citizen delegates," many of them political novices, were part of an elaborate experiment Jan. 18-21 [1996] that cost nearly $4 million to conduct. Beginning last November, people were randomly selected, polled on their opinions, and offered an all-expense-paid trip to Austin to discuss three key issues: the economy, the state of the family and America's role in a post-Cold War world.

When they got to Austin, the delegates, working in preassigned discussion groups, formulated questions that they later posed to policy experts and presidential candidates during the live broadcasts. Then, just before leaving Austin, the delegates were polled again to see how their views changed after the briefings and discussions.

In the process, more of them became worried about the effect of easy divorce on the family, skeptical of the flat tax, supportive of foreign aid, and confident that they were personally worth listening to, according to the organizers. [Related story.]

In the midst of the convention, most delegates voiced wonder at the participants' respectful and tolerant manner.

"It's amazing how much we agree on. There's only a small amount we disagree on, and if we do, it's friendly. One older woman in my group called me a socialist, but then said it was okay since I was still in college," said Seth Rotramel of Seattle.

PBS newsman Jim Lehrer hosted the live broadcasts. On the evening of Jan. 20, Republican candidates Sen. Phil Gramm, former Tennessee Gov. Lamar Alexander and publisher Steve Forbes participated via satellite, while Sen. Richard Lugar appeared in Austin. Vice President Al Gore came to Austin Sunday morning for the second live broadcast, and answered questions for more than an hour.

Each broadcast from the convention, including repeats on Sunday evening, drew average audience ratings of 1.1 or more in Nielsen's 33 overnight markets, according to John Fuller, PBS research director. On Jan. 20, stations in 28 of these markets carried the Republican program live, earning a 1.2 rating; a repeat of the GOP show the next evening was carried by 16 stations with an average rating of 1.1. Fifteen stations aired the program featuring Vice President Gore's appearance live on Jan. 21 and averaged 1.1. An 8 p.m. repeat of this program by 28 stations drew a 1.4.

Fuller said the audience size was about the same for such 1992 political programs as The 90's election special (which averaged 0.7), "Why Bother Voting?" (1.0), and "America's Political Parties" (1.7 and 1.5).

A wrap-up program on Jan. 26 detailed the results of the "deliberative poll" and featured highlights of the issues convention.

Organizers hired cow-sitters

The before and after polls of the delegates were a key feature of the convention and the methodology being tested. The deliberative poll was developed by convention organizer James Fishkin of the University of Texas, site of the event. Whether the political scientist had succeeded in assembling a cross-section of America for the poll was questioned by some journalists. Fishkin said the delegate break-down followed the national pattern in such factors as gender, race/ethnicity, age, income, region, voting history, party affiliation, marital status and religion.

While Fishkin had originally planned to host 600 delegates, the 459 who attended were still, he asserted, representative of the nation, with the exception of people over 70 and Northeasterners. Those categories were slightly underrepresented, in part due to individuals' concerns about traveling in winter weather. It was also impossible to include people from prisons and homeless shelters, but Fishkin said that this did not skew the sample. He used the same methods and an even smaller sample for a deliberative poll tested on national television in Great Britain.

Most of the delegates themselves seemed convinced that they represented a realistic sampling of America. One woman married to an Air Force staff sergeant said she hadn't met many others from the military, but most delegates were excited by the diversity exhibited within the small groups.

"In my group, we have blacks, whites, men, single mothers, a disabled woman, an older woman, and me, a recovering drug addict," said Marty Dorn of Monett, Mo. "I've got this long hair and earring, but they're not judging anybody here."

Each delegate was assigned to a particular discussion group of 15 to 20 people, but mingled with others during meal breaks and at the hotels. After the first day's lunch break, New Jersey plant engineer Peter Riggiani remained at the table talking with Malcom Guss, an African-American welder from South Central L.A. While each spoke in distinctly different accents, Riggiani and Guss agreed that corruption in government had made people cynical and apathetic.

Guss said it had even been difficult for him to listen to the idea of the conference, but the persistence of "the lady who kept leaving messages on my answering machine" finally piqued his interest. Contact with the delegates and survey research, both before and after the convention, was handled by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago. Sometimes it took a combination of persuasion and practical aid to get somebody to travel far from home for an experimental forum.

"Virginia Brown talked me into coming," said Alabama delegate Mary Dodd, referring to the NORC pollster who contacted her and shepherded her through the process. "She talked and talked, and she paid somebody $100 to milk my cows." Dodd, 53, lives on a farm outside Bessemer, Ala., and had never flown on a plane before.

Another delegate, a 19-year-old college student, would have lost his place in his classes at the University of California, Fishkin said, but university officials were persuaded to make an exception, so he could participate in Austin.

Disappointment: no Dole

The citizen delegates, some accompanied by family members, also seemed pleased with the way the event was run. The small group discussions were lead by veteran moderators from the National Issues Forums, a 14-year-old nationwide program of citizen forums. Two hosts also attended each group, taking care of all logistics. Countless volunteers with walkie-talkies cruised university buildings, relaying information and trying to meet everyone's needs. During one long discussion group, for example, a pregnant delegate grew tired, and volunteers quickly summoned a van to take her to her hotel.

"I'm real impressed with the organization of this first-time conference," said Tom Stoelting, a Defense Department employee from Anchorage. "There were so few screw-ups."

On Friday night, the Austin Chamber of Commerce hosted a giant dinner and dance for delegates, their accompanying friends and family members and nearly 300 journalists. In the enormous Frank Erwin Center, the music of country swing band Asleep at the Wheel reverberated as people consumed unlimited quantities of barbecue, beans and potato salad.

Delegates did express disappointment about the live broadcast Saturday night, mostly relating to the less than satisfactory satellite feeds of three G.O.P. candidates. Lehrer sometimes had to relay delegates' questions to the candidates because the politicians couldn't hear them well enough.

"The satellite wasn't very personal and that's one of the things we were looking for--personal," said Roy Ramey of Calumet, Okla. "I was disappointed more of [the candidates] weren't here in person."

The four Republican candidates were also criticized for making campaign speeches as opposed to responding to the delegates' actual questions. The greatest disappointment, however, was the absence of Sen. Bob Dole, the leading Republican candidate. When word spread that Dole's staff had never bothered to respond to repeated invitations, many delegates took it personally.

"Tell them I'm going to remember this in the fall," said Vincent DiVincenzo of New Jersey, leaning into the reporter's face for emphasis.

Some participants were worn out by the long sessions--sitting four-and-a-half hours on a stage under TV lights on Saturday night. Though the broadcasts gave urgency and focus to the whole event, they were an anticlimax for some participants. Colorado court reporter Ann Williams thought the group meetings generally had more influence on her thinking than the broadcast encounters with candidates. "The broadcast part probably wasn't that important," she said.

Some disagreed, especially when it came to the Vice President's visit. Gore seemed considerably more successful at connecting with the delegates, partly because he appeared in person and everyone was fresh on Sunday morning, but mostly because the relaxed Gore turned the questioning back to the people and asked delegates about their thoughts and feelings. He even asked for a show of hands on some issues, which delighted the crowd, but took Lehrer by surprise. Lehrer finally asked him to stop, fearing it might influence the results of Fishkin's deliberative poll.

"And when it was over, he didn't leave," said Ramey, referring to the general surprise when the TV cameras were turned off and the Vice President said he wanted to stay and talk. "He took more questions. He showed feeling for us."

"We walk in their shoes"

Shortly before being whisked to Austin, each delegate received a 14-page discussion guide called "Issues '96: A Guide to Public Deliberation." According to Fishkin, the guide created by the Kettering Foundation and Public Agenda was meant to frame the discussion in a nonpartisan manner. The guide contained a brief summary of each issue, a page of terms, trends and facts, and a selection of three directions or perspectives for the delegates to choose from. For example, in the category of "The Troubled American Family," the guide presented these choices:

Essays of 10 or 12 paragraphs explained the basic ideas behind each viewpoint; the guide noted that the best solution may be a combination of all three. Most delegates seemed satisfied with the guide.

"The pamphlet gave us a number of different perspectives and pushed us to think about the issues in new ways, and the forum's design kept us focused," said the Rev. Barbara Libby, a United Church of Christ pastor from New Haven, Conn.

In addition to receiving a free trip, food, entertainment, a $300 stipend and plenty of media attention, most delegates said they learned a lot.

"When we talk to people from Minnesota who can't sell their own wheat, we walk in their shoes," said Linda Rosborough, an African-American from Plano, Tex. "Then we listen and then we are willing to help each other."

Some delegates left with a newfound interest in politics.

"I never voted in my life, and neither has anybody in my family," said Dorn. "But I'm going to be the first, and I'm going to get all my friends to vote, too."

While those kind of emotions are difficult to measure in a poll, Fishkin seemed convinced that the air of hopeful community was just as important as the statistical data.

"Something was going on!" he said happily. "These people were empowered. And that could have a very important long-term effect."

 

-------------------

Austin conference: 'a microcosm of the whole country changing its mind'

Originally published in Current, Jan. 29, 1996

After deliberating in Austin, James Fishkin's ideal electorate viewed flat tax proposals less favorably, grew more supportive of giving states responsibility for the social safety net, and agreed more strongly that the U.S. should cooperate militarily with other nations to address trouble spots.

Perhaps more importantly for an experiment partly funded by PBS's Democracy Project, delegates to the National Issues Convention felt "empowered'' by the experience, said Fishkin, the Texas political scientist who originated the deliberative poll concept. When participants responded to the question, "I have opinions about politics that are worth listening to,'' 68 percent of the participants strongly agreed, an increase of 27 points over their response in a poll taken before the Austin convention.

"There were many significant changes'' in delegates' opinions during the deliberative poll, but also many beliefs that held firm, said Fishkin at a Jan. 25 [1996] press conference. "What stayed the same provides the context for what changed.''

On economic issues, for example, the majority of delegates indicated in both the "before'' and "after'' polls that reducing the federal budget deficit was "very important.'' But, afterwards, more delegates believed that average workers are not adequately compensated, and 86 percent indicated that the country was not spending enough on education and training.

Delegates' responses to a question on the flat tax also showed dramatic shifts: in the original poll, opponents and supporters of the proposal were evenly split at 43 percent, and only 13 percent said they didn't know. After deliberating, almost half opposed the proposal, 29 percent favored it, and 20 percent said they didn't know what to think about it.

Fishkin declined to say whether this shift occurred because the chief flat-tax proponent, Republican candidate Steve Forbes, was not favorably received by the delegates. Sticking closely to his campaign message in responding to their questions apparently did not go over well with the sample of citizens gathered at the University of Texas.

In the baseline poll, participants responded as members of the general public, Fishkin noted. He attributed lost support for the flat tax to delegates "realizing it has further implications.''

Fishkin also reported these shifts between the two polls:

"It's a microcosm of the whole country changing its mind,'' said Fishkin. "My opinion is, the voice of the people is more valuable if it's deliberative.''

 

-------------------

To Current's home page

Earlier news: What Fishkin was trying to do, and what critics said about it

Briefing on public journalism and public broadcasting.

-------------------

Web page created Feb. 13, 1996
Current
The newspaper about public television and radio
in the United States
A service of Current Publishing Committee, Takoma Park, Md.
E-mail: webatcurrent.org
301-270-7240
Copyright 1998