What would Americans really think about possible reforms to our democracy and electoral processes if they had a chance to weigh the options under good conditions? Researchers James Fishkin, Alice Siu, and Larry Diamond of the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab (DDL), in collaboration with Helena and various partners, have just conducted a national Deliberative Poll® to find out.

America in One Room: Democratic Reform is the third installment of America in One Room (A1R), a Deliberative Polling® project designed to explore Americans’ perspectives on some of our country’s most contentious issues, including voter access, non-partisan election administration, protection against election interference, Supreme Court reform, and more. With the 2024 election on the horizon, the findings from this comprehensive deliberative poll have the potential to reshape the discourse surrounding these important topics.

In a joint press release, DDL shared that poll results showed increased movement toward bipartisan support on a set of previously polarizing issues that are already beginning to drive political debates and candidate platforms as we head into Election 2024.

Before deliberations, participants across party lines reported feeling dissatisfied with the way democracy is working in the U.S., with 65% of Democrats, 81% of Republicans, and 72% of participants overall reporting dissatisfaction. However, deliberating together about potential reforms reduced discontent, with the overall percentage of dissatisfaction dropping 18 points to 54%, and party dissatisfaction dropping 11 points for Democrats and 31 points for Republicans.

Across specific democratic reform topics, there were often strong party differences before deliberation. Discourse resulted in significant depolarization and increased cross-party support on several key issues, including voting rights and ballot access.

Below, Fishkin, the director of DDL; Diamond, the Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at FSI; and Siu, a senior research scholar and the associate director of DDL, reflect on their findings and what the results indicate about the path forward in strengthening American democracy.

What were your biggest takeaways from this iteration of America in One Room (A1R)? Were you surprised by any of the results?

Jim Fishkin: In normal times, the issues of how we register to vote, how and when we cast our ballots, and how we can avoid partisan interference in the elections would not be big issues. But we live in a period of fierce partisan division about our elections, and I was gratified to see this affirmation of basic American values about the non-partisan guardrails of democracy. The movement by Republicans on issues like voting rights for felons was large and surprising. The willingness of Democrats to embrace audits with random samples of ballots and paper records of the votes confirmed by the voter (initially Republican positions) also showed the capacity of dialogue to move opinion.

Larry Diamond: One of the biggest takeaways was the consistent majority support for Ranked Choice Voting in all of its different potential applications. After deliberating, majorities of our sample consistently supported the use of RCV for all kinds of elections — local, state, and national, and in both primaries and in general elections. While Republicans were more wary of this reform, up to 45% of Republicans supported some use of it, for example, in local elections, and 43% of Republicans liked the "final four" or "final five" version, as in Alaska, where there is a single non-partisan primary and then the top four finishers contest in a general election using RCV. I was also struck by the openness to some other electoral reform proposals and the strong gains in support for these (including proportional representation) after deliberation. I was not surprised by how far apart Democrats and Republicans remained on the Electoral College — there is an obvious divergence in partisan interest there.

Alice Siu: We can never predict what participants' opinions will be after deliberation. What surprised me the most was the increase in satisfaction with democracy after deliberation. Prior to deliberation, only 27% of participants expressed satisfaction with the current way democracy is working in the US. After deliberation, this percentage increased to 54%. Furthermore, when looking at satisfaction levels by political parties, we found that Republicans' satisfaction increased from 18 to 50% and Democrats increased from 34 to 46%. We have to keep in mind that participants deliberated together for 12 hours over the course of a weekend or a few weekday evenings. Together after engaging in thoughtful and structured deliberation, they developed a greater satisfaction with democracy, just showing that what our society needs are opportunities to talk and listen to each other.

The Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law is pleased to announce the release of the fourth module of mini-lectures in our Solving Public Policy Problems massive open online course (MOOC).

Serious Business: Diminishing the Size of the Informal Sector in Medellin, Colombia

The new mayor of Medellin, Sergio Fajardo, arrived in office in 2004, pledging to remake the social contract between society and the state. He campaigned to introduce innovative social programs designed to lessen the high levels of poverty and violence in the city. But, the mayor needed money to finance these programs. The Minister of Planning, Federico Restrepo Posada, was charged with engaging the private sector, increasing tax revenue and promoting job creation. To do this, Restrepo needed to address the high levels of informal economic activity hindering economic dynamism and depressing the tax base. The state could not provide the necessary services because it did not collect enough taxes, but businesses refused to pay taxes because they did not believe the state was capable of delivering the services that they required. The case looks at how Restrepo addressed this dilemma.

Through this case study, students will learn why informality is a problem in developing countries and how they can employ a causal map to develop a set of theories of change for addressing policy problems.

You can read the case study here, access the full series on our YouTube page, and watch Module 4 below:

Reunions are always marked by the distinct nostalgia of your most memorable moments with people whom you shared lengths of time with. No doubt that the Leadership Network for Change reunion held this past summer at Stanford was one such event for me. Right from walking back into Munger residence, I immediately remembered how, with newly made friends in the Draper Hills class of 2018, we chatted as we walked back and forth to our classes or spent many hours sitting on the benches talking about global events or sharing personal stories – almost always with a bottle of wine (the famous room 555 of the class of 2018 comes to mind). For most of the people I spoke to during this reunion, there was a shared sense despite our different cohorts, of how ‘not long ago’ it was since leaving (not even the occurrence of the pandemic made it seem like it was a long time ago). It felt like we’d just been there months earlier. It speaks to how impactful our time together was and the deep connections made in and out of class experiences. 

Seeing the familiar faces of Larry Diamond, Francis Fukuyama, Michael McFaul, Kathryn Stoner, and Erik Jensen reminded me how fortunate I was to have had access to legendary global democracy shaping minds. What is always humbling, however, is when they each tell you that it is an honor for them to meet us.

The Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) at Stanford University is pleased to announce that Stephen Kotkin has been appointed to the position of FSI Senior Fellow, effective September 1, 2022.

Kotkin is based at FSI’s Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center (APARC), and is affiliated with FSI’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, as well. He holds a joint appointment with the Hoover Institution as the Kleinheinz Senior Fellow.

"Stephen is a remarkable academic and public intellectual whose work has transformed our understanding of Russian history and the historical processes that have shaped today’s global geopolitics,” said APARC Director Gi-Wook Shin. “We are proud to have him as our colleague at APARC and are excited to work together to expand the center’s scholarship on the role and impact of the Eurasian powers in the era of great-power competition."

Prior to joining FSI, Kotkin was the Birkelund Professor of History and International Affairs in what was formerly known as the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, where he taught for 33 years. He now holds that title as emeritus. In addition to founding and running Princeton’s Global History Initiative, Kotkin directed the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies and served as the founding co-director of the Program in History and the Practice of Diplomacy. He chaired the editorial board of Princeton University Press.

“Joining the ranks of the phenomenal scholars at FSI is a dream come true,” Kotkin stated.