Citizens’ Initiative Review

A Citizens' Initiative Review (CIR) is a small, relatively representative panel that deliberates on a ballot initiative or referendum to be decided in an upcoming election in order to produce a useful (typically one-page) summary for voters.

Process

The panelists are chosen through means such as random sampling and stratified sampling to be demographically representative.[1] This often involves paying for the time and travel of the roughly two dozen participants.[2] While not quite a citizens' assembly according to John Rountree and Nicole Curato, they note it shares many of the same characteristics.[3]

A trained moderator oversees the discussions. Over a few days, panelists deliberate among themselves and question experts and advocates on all sides of the initiative. The panelists write a statement in a form that can be made available by including it in the voter's pamphlet or guide. This statement summarizes the best arguments, pros, and cons and lists the number of panelists who recommended voting for and against the initiative.[4]

Purpose

A Citizens' Initiative Review aims to strengthen the quality and impact of the public voice in elections and government decisions.[5] It helps to fill an information gap when much of the discourse might come from advertisements or spokespersons from a campaign.[6] Under a CIR, voters are sent a one-pager of citizens' findings about facts as well as pros and cons about the proposed initiative after careful study and deliberation.[4] Vote tallies of the participants' final position on the issue have fallen out of favor given the groups often aren't large enough to be statistically significant.

Evaluation

Academic research reported that CIR panelists achieved high-quality deliberation.[7] Voters became aware of those deliberations through voters' pamphlets and found the statement to be helpful to their decisions, and voter knowledge about the initiatives increased.[8][9] The panelists themselves developed new attitudes about the political process and their capabilities.[10]

In practice

The state of Oregon created the first permanent Citizens' Initiative Review in 2010, while pilots have been run in places including Colorado,[11] Arizona,[12] Massachusetts,[13] Sion (Switzerland)[14] and Finland.[9] Funding has not been permanently allocated in Oregon, so the application has been limited to one ballot measure on the years when funding has been provided.

See also

Citizens' Initiative Review Research Project at Penn State University - Publications

References
  1. Gastil, John; Richards, Robert; Knobloch, Katherine (2 January 2014). "Vicarious Deliberation: How the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review Influenced Deliberation in Mass Elections". International Journal of Communication. 8: 28. ISSN 1932-8036.
  2. "Citizens' Initiative Review | Government Innovators Network". www.innovations.harvard.edu. Archived from the original on August 12, 2020.
  3. "De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens' Assemblies", De Gruyter Handbook of Citizens’ Assemblies, De Gruyter, 2023-05-31, doi:10.1515/9783110758269, ISBN 978-3-11-075826-9, retrieved 2023-07-13. Section 6.3.
  4. Drury, Sara A. Mehltretter; Rountree, John (2023-03-24). "The Genre of Deliberative Guidance: Rhetoric and Deliberation in Citizens' Initiative Review Statements". Western Journal of Communication: 1–22. doi:10.1080/10570314.2023.2183777. ISSN 1057-0314.
  5. Knobloch, Katherine R. (August 1, 2013). "Evaluating a New Governing Institution: An Assessment of the Citizens' Initiative Review". National Communication Association.
  6. Gastil, John. "Beyond Endorsements and Partisan Cues: Giving Voters Viable Alternatives to Unreliable Cognitive Shortcuts." The Good Society, vol. 23 no. 2, 2014, p. 145-159. Project MUSEmuse.jhu.edu/article/564743. (pdf)
  7. Katherine R. Knobloch, John Gastil, Justin Reedy, and Katherine Cramer Walsh, "Did They Deliberate? Applying an Evaluative Model of Democratic Deliberation to the Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review." Jan. 9, 2013. Journal of Applied Communication Research. (pdf)
  8. Knobloch, Katherine R.; Gastil, John; Feller, Traci; Richards, Robert C.; Jr, Robert C. (2014-10-31). "Empowering Citizen Deliberation in Direct Democratic Elections: A Field Study of the 2012 Oregon Citizens' Initiative Review". Field Actions Science Reports. The journal of field actions (in French) (Special Issue 11). ISSN 1867-139X.
  9. Gastil, John; Ársælsson, Kristinn Már; Knobloch, Katherine R.; Brinker, David L.; Richards, Robert C.; Reedy, Justin; Burkhalter, Stephanie (2023-07-27). Daoust, Jean-François (ed.). "Deliberative panels as a source of public knowledge: A large-sample test of the Citizens' Initiative Review". PLOS ONE. 18 (7): e0288188. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0288188. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 10374050. PMID 37498894.
  10. Knobloch, Katherine R.; Gastil, John (June 2015). "Civic (Re)socialisation: The Educative Effects of Deliberative Participation". Politics. 35 (2): 183–200. doi:10.1111/1467-9256.12069. ISSN 0263-3957.
  11. Estabrook, Rachel (October 20, 2014). "Experiment to help voters understand Colorado ballot measures | CPR". Colorado Public Radio. Archived from the original on 2015-01-03. Retrieved 2017-07-21.
  12. Gastil, J., Reedy, J., Morrell, M., & Anderson, C. (2016). Assessment of the 2016 Arizona Citizens’ Initiative Review Pilot on Proposition 205. State College, PA: Pennsylvania State University. Available online at http://sites.psu.edu/citizensinitiativereview . (pdf)
  13. Emanuel, Gabrielle (2018-10-22). "Lawmakers Consider Including 'Citizens' Statements' In The State's Voter Guide". News. Retrieved 2023-06-25.
  14. "Do you trust your fellow citizens more than your leaders?". SWI swissinfo.ch. 2020-01-23. Retrieved 2023-06-25.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.