Changes coming on the NCDD website!

Hi, folks! We wanted to give you a heads-up about some changes that are coming soon on the website, and to get your input on what should be featured on the main page of the site.

US-GoogleMap-outlinedFirst, we’re taking down the Members Network that’s currently up at www.ncdd.org/members. It uses a social network platform that doesn’t really work too well — it’s slow-loading, hard to search and navigate, and our members rarely use it.

We’re replacing it with two tools that we think you’ll find more useful:  the global google map of members up at www.ncdd.org/map in beta, and a simple directory of our members that will be ready for you to check out soon.

Second, we’re revamping the main page of our site. Instead of having so many lists and so much text, we’re planning on having a grid of different-sized images, titles, and social media widgets. You can get a sense of what I mean at www.ncdd.org/working-grid. Imagine that some of the gray boxes have lively images (of you guys!) in them; one may list the latest three blog posts (or perhaps just the title of one featured post); the long one on the right may show a list of our latest Tweets; another would announce an upcoming event, and another may send people to the Beginner’s Guide in the Resource Center.

We’re not sure exactly what will go into those boxes yet, and really want your ideas!  What is it that YOU use most on the site? What do you find useful on the site that is a little hard to get to? What do you think is most useful for people who are new to the site? Please add your thoughts below!

why can’t a centrist coalition form in the US House?

(Sacramento) If the legislature of almost any other democracy faced our current crisis, there would be talk of forming a new government.

John Boehner presides over a coalition composed of the center-right plus the Tea Party. Since those two groups are at odds, the obvious choice in almost any other system would be to build a different majority in the House. For instance, Boehner could propose a status-quo budget until the 2014 elections and promise to allow votes on all other topics with simple majority support. That proposal would probably gain the backing of 70% of the House. (It would exclude the Tea Party–who would turn their attention to the next election–and the House Progressive Caucus, whose members would balk on the ground that the budgetary status quo is unacceptable.) Boehner could even offer Nancy Pelosi the number-two position in the House. He would thus become the leader of a new majority coalition that would easily pass a budget.

Why isn’t this an option in the US? The constitution is no impediment. In fact, as Sandy Levinson notes, the House can even name a distinguished non-Congressperson to serve as Speaker. That is an example of the freedom to innovate that we tend to forget because we regard our traditions as inviolable.

If the constitution does not prevent a parliamentary solution to our current crisis, I think these are the main obstacles:

First, single-member, winner-take-all districts yield a two-party system. If there are just two parties, then (barring a perfect tie) one of them must have an outright majority in the House. Members of the majority party benefit from that status and are always highly reluctant to split. In Italy, India, or Israel, legislators come from many parties that sometimes split and recombine; leaving the governing coalition can be an appealing choice.

Second, the Speaker controls the floor. I don’t know much about discharge petitions and the like, but I don’t think that a proposal for new leadership could come up for a vote without the rules changing first. This means that although Boehner could—hypothetically—abandon the Tea Party and build a new centrist majority, no one else is really in a position to do that. Since Boehner doesn’t have to worry about the threat of a new majority being formed by a rival (say, by Nancy Pelosi), he can concentrate on potential revolts within his own party instead.

Finally, sheer tradition stands in the way. Because new coalitions never form in our Congress, the Tea Party would regard Republicans who suddenly joined a bipartisan governing majority as traitors on the order of Benedict Arnold himself. Their shock and horror would be immense. In contrast, parliamentary systems see frequent realignments. If you get dropped from a majority coalition, it’s just politics as usual.

John Boehner could form a centrist coalition in the US House and resolve the current budgetary crisis. That’s not illegal or unthinkable, but I think the odds are about one in a thousand. It’s also about one in a thousand that some moderate Republicans will decide to caucus with the Democrats and bring down his speakership. Far more likely is a continued struggle between the two existing party blocs in the House. Although our system has certain advantages, it is far more brittle than the alternatives, and we are paying the price right now.

The post why can’t a centrist coalition form in the US House? appeared first on Peter Levine.

John Gastil Interview from NCDD Seattle

At the 2012 NCDD national conference in Seattle, NCDD member and filmmaker Jeffrey Abelson sat down with over a dozen leaders in our community to ask them about their work and their hopes and concerns for our field and for democratic governance in our country.

Today we’re featuring the interview with John Gastil, Head of the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State University.  A long time member, friend and supporter of NCDD, John is one of our field’s most respected researchers. Many of you will remember John as our co-emcee at NCDD Seattle (with Susanna Haas Lyons). He has authored many books on deliberation, including Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement (with NCDD members Tina Nabatchi and Matt Leighninger), The Deliberative Democracy Handbook (with NCDD member Peter Levine), and Democracy in Small Groups — to name just a few!

Watch the blog over the next month or so for more videos from NCDD Seattle, which brought together 400 leaders and innovators in our field.  You can also check out Jeffrey Abelson’s Song of a Citizen YouTube channel and in our NCDD 2012 Seattle playlist on YouTube.

Collaborative Master Planning (Featured D&D Story)

Today we’d like to feature another great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, Collaborative Master Planning. This mini case study was submitted by Karen Wianecki via NCDD’s new Dialogue Storytelling Tool, which we recently launched to collect stories from our members about their work.

We know that there are plenty of other stories from our NCDD members out there that can teach key insights about working in dialogue, deliberation, and engagement. We want to hear them! Please add YOUR dialogue story today, and let us learn from you!


D&D stories logoTitle of Project:

Collaborative Master Planning – The Difference Between Consultation & Engagement

Description

We were retained to develop Master Plans for three very special and very unique communities in Ontario, Canada. In developing the Master Plans, we made a commitment to work with the community and to embrace a co-creative and collaborative mindset, at the process.

We recognized early on that whole community engagement was critical and moreover that those who called these communities home knew more about their communities than we did. We were there to learn. The process was designed with participants. Each community determined the approach they wanted to see unfold. In each case, an open, inclusive, engaging, iterative and evolutionary approach was used.

The Master Plans that emerged received broad support from the community members – full time residents as well as seasonal residents. In one case, the community offered the Mayor and Members of Council a standing ovation. A number of major milestones were put in place and some real tangible results have emerged including the infusion of funds from upper levels of government, the acquisition of a signature waterfront site, and the development of a much needed public park, boat launch and beach area.

Which dialogue and deliberation approaches did you use or borrow heavily from?

  • Appreciative Inquiry
  • Conversation Cafe
  • Charrettes

What was your role in the project?

Primary Facilitator

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Economic issues
  • Environment
  • Planning and development

Lessons Learned

  • Engage, do not consult. For many, the only message that emerges from consultation is the ‘con’ part.
  • Engage early and often.
  • Say what you mean and mean what you say. commitments. 5. Follow up and follow through.
  • Value the voices of all.
  • Build a ‘whole team approach.’ All of us have some of the answers; none of us have all of the answers.
  • Process is as important as product.
  • Recognize that collaboration and partnership can produce results that are truly remarkable.

Where to learn more about the project:

www.e-planningsolutions.ca

Kuna ACT Study Circles (Alliance for a Cohesive Community Team)

Author: 
The original team of Kuna ACT and all supporters knew we needed a vehicle to provide an infrastructure of collaborative discussion providing a place where citizens could gain ownership of the issues and discover and maintain common ground, creating a greater desire and ability to work together to solve local issues. We needed a community information gathering source, a place where the community gets a voice, a neutral setting facilitated by a non-profit, non-political, non-partisan group. Citizens needed a voice before decisions were made. Until now, the only voice came from people showing up at meetings furious about a controversial issue or decisions made without input. Our plan was to implement grass roots decision making, where study circle participants knew their ideas would reach the agencies that requested the information to be implemented into public policy. Our goal was not a single event, but to be persistent in changing the way decisions were and are made in Kuna through a perpetual system webbed into the lifeblood of the Kuna Community.

Awesome Interviews from NCDD’s 2012 Conference

looking_back_badgeDuring the 2012 NCDD national conference in Seattle, NCDD member and filmmaker Jeffrey Abelson sat down with over a dozen leaders in our community to ask them about their work, their hopes and concerns for our field and for democratic governance in our country, and their ideas about how we might effectively combine forces to make a greater impact — questions that were very much aligned with our conference themes.

The result was a series of wonderfully rich videos focusing on the current state of public engagement in the U.S., all currently available here on Jeffrey’s Song of a Citizen YouTube channel and in our NCDD 2012 Seattle playlist on YouTube.

Over the next month or so we’ll be looking back at our fantastic event in Seattle, which brought together 400 leaders and innovators in our field. In a series of blog posts, we’ll be featuring Jeffrey’s videos along with other items from the conference. We’ll also be looking ahead to the 2014 conference, and asking you to engage with us about our next event!

This compilation video will give you a taste of the interviews and presentations that we’ll be featuring in the coming weeks…

game theory and the fiscal cliff (ii)

In January, I wrote a post diagramming the negotiations between President Obama and the House Republicans in game-theory terms. I thought the result that actually occurred was highly predictable if one assumed that the situation was a one-off Prisoner’s Dilemma with two players (Obama and Boehner). But I raised two complications: the game might be “Chicken” rather than a Prisoner’s Dilemma; and it would be repeated, which changes the strategic calculations.

Now it is being repeated. The President sees it as “Chicken” this time and has made the recommended play. To win Chicken, you should throw your steering wheel out of the window to show that you are not going to swerve. Then the other player has the choice of dying in a draw or living by losing. Obama tried to create that situation for John Boehner by calling the Speaker privately to say that he will not negotiate over the debt limit. I say Obama “tried” to create that situation because, in fact, the president still holds the steering wheel, and Republicans know he can negotiate if he wants to. That is why they are still driving straight.

In the Economist, “M.S.” suggests a play for Obama: promise to veto any debt-ceiling increase unless Congress passes immigration reform. This would be symmetrical to the Republicans’ threat to undermine or repeal Obamacare in return for a debt-ceiling increase. M.S. thinks this gambit would reveal the reckless behavior of the House Republicans. Maybe, but I think the public would draw the conclusion that both sides are maniacs. The president should simply point out that he is not making that kind of play.

In any case, the situation is a lot more complicated than a two-player Chicken Game. For one thing, the Republicans get to choose whether to play the “shut-the-government” game or the “default-on-the-debt” game, and in which order. Besides, there are many players. To name just the obvious ones: Tea Party House Republicans (who are showing that they understand the situation, they don’t care about Boehner, and they do not want to lose); Senate Republicans of various stripes; Wall Street and other big donors; Congressional Democrats; reporters; and the American people, most of whom have not paid much attention yet–but they will.

If the government shuts down or defaults (or both), then clearly the next stage in the “game” will be an effort to pin the blame on the other side. Game theory is not especially helpful for understanding this stage, which will be a struggle for rhetorical framing rather than a negotiation. Probably the best guess is that the Republicans will take the blame– which I think they deserve–but that is uncertain because the country and media are polarized and the Republicans have their talking points ready and honed. Pew finds that Republicans will start the blame-allocation phase about on par with the President, and that may embolden them to take us into default.

The Democrats will win the finger-pointing phase if people blame Republicans and decide to vote against them in 2014, but not if people blame Congress, which you cannot vote against. This is a sticky reality for the President, because attacking Republicans makes him look partisan (when people see partisanship as the problem). But I think he has to do it anyway. He will have two free cards to play: 1) Congress may not even succeed in sending him a bill to veto, in which case it will be much easier to pin the full responsibility on the House leadership, and 2) the House has taken about 124 recess days in 2013, by my unofficial calculation.

Congressional procedure is always a confusing and boring topic, but if I were the president, I would say: “The government has shut down because the House Republicans could not even send me a budget bill to consider, even though it is their constitutional responsibility to pass a budget by the end of every fiscal year. They took 124 days off this year. They can reopen the government in fifteen minutes by sending me a clean budget bill that preserves the status quo.” (Of course, the status quo is a unacceptable, but it beats a disaster.)

The post game theory and the fiscal cliff (ii) appeared first on Peter Levine.

Disaporas in Dialogue (Featured D&D Story)

Today we’d like to feature another great example of dialogue and deliberation in action, the Diasporas in Dialogue project. This mini case study was submitted by Dr. Barbara Tint via NCDD’s new Dialogue Storytelling Tool, which we recently launched to collect stories from our members about their work.

We know that there are plenty of other stories from our NCDD members out there that can teach key insights about working in dialogue, deliberation, and engagement. We want to hear them! Please add YOUR dialogue story today, and let us learn from you!


D&D stories logoTitle of Project:

Diasporas in Dialogue

Description

This project consisted of four years of work conducting assessment, dialogue groups, dialogue training, and community reconciliation capacity-building efforts in multiple African diaspora communities in Portland, Oregon, USA. Predicated on the belief that historical conflicts from home regions were travelling with migrant populations and being left unattended in the diaspora, we saw the need and the opportunity to provide a safe forum for community members to come together to address their fractured past, their difficult present, and their uncertain future.

The African Diaspora Dialogue Project (ADDP), generously supported by the Andrus Family Fund, was a collaboration between the Conflict Resolution Graduate Program at Portland State University and the Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization, serving Oregon and Washington.

The outcomes of the project included transformed communities, healed relationships, new joint ventures and coalitions among community members, newly trained in-community dialogue facilitators and a book about the work.

Which dialogue and deliberation approaches did you use or borrow heavily from?

  • Appreciative Inquiry
  • Public Conversations Project dialogue
  • Sustained Dialogue
  • Technology of Participation approaches
  • Intergroup Dialogue
  • Restorative Justice approaches

What was your role in the project?

Founder and Director of the Project. Dialogue facilitator. Author of the book.

What issues did the project primarily address?

  • Partisan divide
  • Immigration
  • Youth issues

Lessons Learned

  • Dialogue was successful and transformative.
  • Participants were yearning for new skills and knowledge around these issues and often wanted teaching along with dialogue.
  • Recruitment took much longer than expected and was initially challenging due to suspicions and complicated identity affiliations.
  • We needed deeper understanding of community needs and desires. Some of our initial thinking had been challenged by what we learned in dialogue.
  • Organization and logistics were extremely difficult.
  • Everything took much more time than we expected.
  • We needed more time for planning and reflection.
  • As groups had been conducted in English, our ability to involve certain community members was limited.
  • Status differences in dialogue groups (age, gender, community role) could be both an asset and a challenge.
  • Community members felt empowered and engaged through this process, and many emerged as leaders for reconciliation.
  • Working with youth was an important and powerful dimension of reconciliation within the diaspora.
  • The elders in the communities were invaluable in contributing to the success of the project.
  • Dialogue facilitation was a deeper skill than we could effectively train for in the time we had allowed.
  • Other community and refugee groups from different regions were also interested in participating in dialogue.
  • Ripeness and readiness had a great deal to do with who engaged and benefited from the process.

Where to learn more about the project:

For more information about the Diasporas in Dialogue project and book, please see www.pdx.edu/research/profile/dialogues-deep-change and www.pdx.edu/diasporas-in-dialogue/