What would the voters from Pennsylvania really think about issues if they discussed them thoroughly in the civil environment and based on evidence for a long weekend?
Are you saying that it never happened? People who run “America in one room“Bell to differ.
On June 5-9 in Philadelphia, he sponsors an experiment HelenaThe global organization of problem solving works with Democracy taking into account the democracy laboratory at the University of Stanford i Public opinion strategies. One hundred and seventy -five Pennsylvanians were recruited from the whole community to participate in discussions about the problems faced by the state and the nation. Another 502 were assigned to the control group, but did not consider.
The opinion of the voter measured in surveys before and after the deliberations reveals dramatic shifts from the partisan parties towards the middle land in elections and voting rights, immigration and visas, foreign policy and the state of our democracy and other main topics. The result is the real measure of “will of the people” than typical polls rooted in a deep understanding of proposals and discourse with opposite views, and not living in our cells of Echo.
In the trial entitled “considering survey” here are what Pennsylvania had to say about what was happening in the vicinity, their country and the country.
Attitudes towards democracy
How cheerful or dissatisfied you are the way democracy works in the USA “
- At the beginning: 75% were dissatisfied. After the meeting: 54% were dissatisfied. (-21)
- GOP: 57% -> 41% (-16). Demes: 91% -> 66% (-25). India: 79% -> 56% (-23)
- The mere consideration of our arduous choices reduced the current widespread dissatisfaction and caused a bit more positive about democratic possibilities.
Education
“Pennsylvania should implement tuition hats for public universities and universities.”
- At the beginning: 81% support. After the meeting: 77% support (-4)
- GOP: 71% -> 77% (+6). Demes: 76% -> 86% (+10). India: 76% -> 70% (-6)
“Pennsylvania should make tuition fees for public universities and universities.
- At the beginning: 60% support. After the meeting: 46% support (-14)
- GOP: 50% -> 46% (-4). Demes: 73% -> 61% (-12). India: 36% -> 32% (-4)
- Participants discussed the budget impact on universities and the fact that many students with lower income already receive financial assistance.
“Pennsylvania should change its constitution to directly finance the education of every child in the school they choose.”
- At the beginning: 34% support. After the meeting: 40% support (+6)
- GOP: 33% -> 42% (+9). Demes: 30% -> 36% (+6). India: 60% -> 49% (-11)
Democratic processes
“Pennsylvania should impose time limits to state legislators in which, after a certain number of conditions, legislators may never start or exercise office again.”
- At the beginning: 78.1% support. After the meeting. 77.6% support (-0.5)
- GOP: 80% -> 78% (-2). Demes: 78% -> 82% (+4). India: 69% -> 47% (-22)
- The sample weighed whether the term limits would reduce the advantages of the incumbent in relation to whether they would reduce the choice of voters. Ultimately, they seemed to want recent representatives through time limits.
“After an 18-year term, federal judges should not qualify for re-establishing.”
- At the beginning: 72% support. After the meeting: 75% support (+3)
- Gop: 75% -> 76% (-1). Demos 70% -> 77% (+7), India 53% -> 55% (+2)
- The predictable meeting cycles would allow recent perspectives. While there was some concern for the transition, it seemed that slight support for our current system of life visits.
“The Supreme Court should have the same binding ethical code that other federal judges have.”
- At the beginning: 82% support. After the meeting: 86% support. (+4)
- GOP: 76.7% -> 77.5% (+0.8). Demes: 87% -> 94% (+7). India: 87% -> 82% (-5)
“Making up that anyone who wants to vote can do it.”
- At the beginning: 83% support. After the meeting: 96% support (+13)
- GOP: 71% -> 93% (+22); Demes: 95% -> 97% (+2). India. 83% -> 100% (+17)
“Pennsylvania should allow for personal vote at least 11 days before the election.”
- At the beginning: 61% support. After the meeting: 71% support (+10).
- GOP: 43% -> 57% (+14). Demes: 80% -> 86% (+6). India. 49% -> 65% (+16)
“Require all voters to provide a government photo identifier obtained with evidence of citizenship during voting.”
- At the beginning: 68% support. After the meeting: 90% of support. (+22)
- GOP: 88% -> 90% (+2). Demes: 48% -> 57% (+9). India: 77% -> 70% (-7)
- Even after considering the issue of whether such measures would hinder the participation of the indigent, the sample adopted the benefits of public trust on voting security.
“Pennsylvania should use impartial primary so that all voters can choose the two best candidates who will face universal elections.”
- At the beginning: 67% support. After the meeting: 61% (-6).
- GOP: 60% -> 56% (-4). Demes: 73% -> 63% (-10). India: 73% -> 82% (+9)
Immigration
“Increase the number of visas for low -qualified employees.”
- At the beginning: 25% support. After the meeting: 50% (+25)
- GOP: 9% -> 29% (+20). Demes: 41% -> 69% (+28). India: 21% -> 53% (+34)
- Participants considered the issue of employee deficiencies in construction, agriculture and hospitality against arguments that they may be burdened with resources needed for US citizens.
“Implement protection at the state level for deferred activities for the childhood arrival program (DAC)”
- At the beginning: 45% support. After the meeting: 56% support (+11)
- GOP: 18% -> 38% (+20). Demes: 73% -> 74% (+1). India: 35% -> 39% (+4)
Public service
“Pennsylvania should provide young people with serious encouragement to participate during the public service at the state level.”
- At the beginning: 74% support. After the meeting: 79% (+5)
- GOP: 73% -> 75% (+2). Demes: 76% -> 81% (+5). India: 69% -> 90% (+21)
- Participants considered the benefits of combining people in order to meet public needs compared to administrative costs and burdens.
Healthcare
“Pennsylvania should offer tax breaks for healthcare suppliers or facilities that expand services in underestimated rural areas.”
- At the beginning: 84% support. After the meeting: 88% support (+4)
- GOP: 81% -> 87% (+6). Demes: 88% -> 88% (0). India: 77% -> 90% (+13)
- Participants considered access to healthcare and dealing with health differences in rural areas in relation to arguments regarding the costs and effectiveness of tax breaks.
“Pennsylvania should encourage healthcare professionals to work in areas underrated through loan forgiveness programs.”
- At the beginning: 83% support. After the meeting: 94% support (+11)
- GOP: 72% -> 94% (+22). Demes: 93% -> 100% (+7). India: 81% -> 90% (+9)
- Participants considered the advantages of attracting healthcare professionals to areas in which they were really needed, compared to costs and questions about the effectiveness of such incentives.
“Pennsylvania should require Medicaid recipients to work 20 hours a week or participate in vocational training to maintain benefits.”
- At the beginning: 58% support. After the meeting: 59% support. (+1)
- GOP: 73.1% -> 72.6% (-0.5). Demes: 43% -> 49% (+6). India: 70% -> 47% (-23)
- Participants considered arguments about encouraging self -sufficiency and mobility up through work against arguments on administrative complexity and burdensome reporting requirements that could unintentionally explode some recipients.
One of the most silver-tongued numbers that was revealed was an boost in mutual respect that resulted from the meeting.
When asked about “people who do not agree with you”, there was an boost from 72% to 91% in people responding “I respect their point of view, although it is different than mine.” There was a 15-point SKOK (30-45%) in accordance with the statement: “They have good reasons; they are simply better on the other side”, while an additional eight percent (81-89) agreed that “he would like to compromise in finding a solution that both we can support.”
“The weekend of the meeting has transformed these voters, he said James FishkinDirector of the Delibranian Democracy Laboratory in Stanford. “They were approaching many of the most dividing problems. They emerged with greater mutual respect and a feeling that it is worth listening to their opinions. Their conclusions offer a road map for voters when they have a chance to really think about our popular problems.”
Pennsylvania decision makers, including Governor Josh ShapiroIN House speaker Joanna McClinton (D-Delaware/Philadelphia) and Stan Senator Joe Picozzi (R-Dhiladelphia) He participated in this event, and McClinton undertook to accept the results related to the proposals of voting reforms when he continues to talk in the state capital.
