Electoral District Forum

An electoral district forum is an online nonpartisan discussion board for the constituents of a single officeholder to interact with themselves, and with their incumbent and candidate political leaders. It is designed to make it easier for representatives to be more responsive to their constituents. It does this by increasing...

Framing Better Conversations about Same-Sex Marriage

The folks at the Public Conversations Project – an NCDD organizational member – recently posted another installment of their “A Better Question” series aimed at helping folks have better conversations on controversial topics. This time, they look at same-sex marriage, and we’re happy to share their post. We encourage you to read the piece below or find the original here.


PCP new logoA Better Question: Same-Sex Marriage

In recent weeks, country has been tuned into the arguments around same-sex marriage posed to the Supreme Court.

The courts and legislatures around the country have a critical decision to make. But after that, regardless of the outcomes of their votes, we as the public have the job of living together.

Beyond the question of Constitution is the question of community. In the wake of monumental decisions like this – whether the issue is same-sex marriage, abortion, or immigration – we still have to figure out how to be together: working together, worshipping together, volunteering for community efforts in our cities and towns, sharing the playground and play-dates. The task at hand is undeniably, but not impossibly, difficult. We must acknowledge that there are very real, deeply felt differences in the way people approach the questions of marriage, family, sexual orientation and child-rearing, all of which come into play in this particular conversation. The higher the stakes, the more critical it is that we are able to speak openly about these issues, and able to hear each other.

Alongside the passionate advocacy for our positions must come an equal measure of our curiosity; and from that we must ask a better question.

Here are some questions that can frame more constructive conversations about same-sex marriage, and help communities navigate the inevitable aftermath of whatever decision may come from the courts. If you find yourself in conversation with someone who believes differently from you, you might lead with one of these:

  • Can you share an experience that has led you to your present understanding of and beliefs about same-sex marriage?
  • What are the core values or commitments that frame your views on same-sex marriage?
  • As you imagine making a commitment of marriage to another person, what are some of the fundamental values that guide you?
  • Have you ever had conversations about this issue with those whose opinions differ from yours? Has there been a time when you were able to express yourself well, listen well and communicate respectfully? What do you think made this possible?

For context, here are the other questions from our blog on vaccination:

  • What have you heard said about your views that leaves you feeling mischaracterized?
  • What do you want folks on the other side of this issue to most understand about your thinking and motivations?
  • Where, if at all, do you feel pulled in different directions, have mixed feelings, areas of less certainty, etc.?
  • How have you learned about those whose viewpoints differ from yours? What else might you want to find out about them?
  • What do you think the media, government or others could do to help or hurt this current situation?

What other questions would you add? Let us know and join the conversation.

You can find the original version of this Public Conversations Project at www.publicconversations.org/blog/better-question-same-sex-marriage#sthash.dg1iUgpn.dpuf.

America’s Energy Future: How Can We Take Charge? (NIFI Issue Guide)

The National Issues Forums Institute published the Issue Guide, America’s Energy Future: How Can We Take Charge?, in January 2015. This Issue Guide puts forth three options for deliberation of how America can address its energy consumption and how to deal with it in the future.   

NIFI_USenergyFrom the guide…

Americans depend on easy access to energy. Most of us take it for granted that we will be able to light up a room with the flick of a switch, adjust the temperature of our homes at will, and climb into our cars every morning to go to work, often at distant sites.

We use more energy than any other country. Americans make up only 4.5 percent of the world’s population, yet we consume about 20 percent of the world’s energy production. Collectively, we drive more, heat more, air condition more, and plug in more electronic devices than anyone else. We use 22 percent of the oil consumed in the world each day.

Worldwide energy use is on the upswing as well, and is projected to keep increasing, as rapidly developing countries, such as China, India, and Brazil, become bigger players in the worldwide market for energy supplies, especially oil. And— sooner or later—the world’s available supply of oil will run out.

The Issue Guide presents three options for deliberation:

Option One: “Produce the Energy We Need to Maintain Our Way of Life”
We need to control our own sources of energy so that we do not have to depend on other, possibly unfriendly, countries for our supplies. We have abundant sources of energy in this country and off its shores. We should develop and use them.

Option Two: “Put More Renewables and Clean Energy Sources into the Mix”
Not only is our lavish use of fossil fuels causing untold damage to the environment, but someday we will run out of oil, coal, and natural gas. We need to make the switch to renewable sources of energy, such as wind and sun, as soon as possible.

Option Three: “Find Ways to Use Less Energy”
The most practical way to deal with our current energy problems in not to produce more energy but to use less of it, and to do more with the energy we do use. This will involve both stricter government regulations and changes in our individual lifestyles.

More about the NIFI Issue Guides
NIFI’s Issue Guides introduce participants to several choices or approaches to consider. Rather than conforming to any single public proposal, each choice reflects widely held concerns and principles. Panels of experts review manuscripts to make sure the choices are presented accurately and fairly. By intention, Issue Guides do not identify individuals or organizations with partisan labels, such as Democratic, Republican, conservative, or liberal. The goal is to present ideas in a fresh way that encourages readers to judge them on their merit.

Issue Guides are generally available in print or PDF download for a small fee ($2 to $4). All NIFI Issue Guides and associated tools can be accessed at www.nifi.org/en/issue-guides.

Follow on Twitter: @NIForums.

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/en/issue-guide/americas-energy-future

The Value of “Just Talk”

As I was reeling yesterday from the seemingly unending stream of assaults on people of color in this country, I was struck by a concern which I’ve often heard echoed:

Yes, there is something wrong in this country, but the real question is what should we do about it?

In many ways, one more blog post decrying the national tragedy of police brutality and our unjust criminal justice system seems vain. It is almost certainly issued in vain, unlikely to affect any real change, and it would most certainly be vain of me to think it might have an impact.

But I keep writing.

I don’t know what else to do.

To be clear, I don’t think my commitment to social justice is fulfilled by a few strong words and inciting posts. But I also don’t think writing is completely superfluous.

It does have value.

And I don’t mean my writing – I mean everyone’s writing, or more specifically, everyone’s self-expression on this topic. In whatever media fits them best.

That has value.

We’ve grown so accustomed to relying on professionals and experts, we’ve become so focused on the institutions and the systems, that we’ve nearly lost track of the individual. We’ve forgotten about our own agency.

Our systems and institutions are broken, and we must surely find ways to tackle those challenges, but even with a terrible police response, we ought to remember –

The police aggression at a Texas pool party was started by a white woman yelling racial slurs.

Our problems aren’t about a racist cop, and they’re not about a racist police department. They are problems endemic within our society.

We each play a role in perpetuating, experiencing, or interacting with racism, and the solution must come from all of us.

We shouldn’t let the cop off the hook, and we shouldn’t let the police officer off the hook, but we should also look at ourselves and look at our communities.

We should ask how we can do better, individually and collectively.

We should share our stories, we should share our views, we should learn from each other and we should work together.

We should talk together as much as we should decide how to act together.

Indeed, the question may be “what should we do?” but to find real solutions, we must ask that question together.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

A Burst of Festivals of the Commons: Italy, Greece and France

There has been a real surge of festivals on the commons in recent months, and in the months ahead!   The First International Festival of the CommonsFestival Internazionale dei Beni Comuni – will be held in Chieri, Italy, from July 9 to 2.  The event is a cultural happening sponsored by the borough Chieri near Torino. 

The festival will consist of meetings, round tables, music, cinema, theatre, art and performances (hashtag, #commonsfestival).  The primary focus, organizers declare, is “how to live and produce in common…..The Festival will be well more than an extemporaneous and spectacular event: it will bethe beginning of a shared journey to the imagination and construction of a more just, open and participated society.”

While there will be plenty of focus on “global theories” presented in Chieri, there will also be a focus on how to reclaim “those local spaces left empty and useless by the crisis of Fordist production.”  A number of panels will look at how to develop alternatives that are not just sustainable, but generative, and political models that let people share responsibilities and choices. 

The legendary Brazilian musicians Gilberto Gil will perform reggae, samba and folk with Caetano Veloso on July 10 at Piazza Dante in Chieri.  Tickets are available now. Free culture fans will recall that Gil, besides showing exemplary courage as a political dissident in Brazil decades ago, was Culture Minister in the early 2000s and an early, critically important champion of Creative Commons licenses.

The Chieri festival will feature a number of headliners such as Vandana Shiva from India; Italian legal scholar, politician and commons theorist Stefano Rodotà; Italian legal scholar Ugo Mattei; Salvatore Settis, President of the Scientific Council of the Louvre; Italian jurist Gustavo Zagrebelsky; and a number of prominent Italian writers, directors and cultural figures. 

I am pleased to join this august roster of commoners for a panel on “The State of the Digital Commons” on July 11 at 10 am.  I will also have the opportunity to celebrate the release of the Italian translation of Think Like a Commoner, as masterfully translated by Bernardo Parrella.  Professor Ugo Mattei has contributed the preface.

read more

Hannah Arendt and thinking from the perspective of an agent

In the following passage from On Revolution (pp. 42-3), Hannah Arendt is criticizing the Hegelian tradition of German philosophy (including Marx) that purports to find fundamental meanings in the narrative of world history.  I think that her words would also describe mainstream social science, which attempts to explain ordinary events empirically rather than philosophically:

Politically, the fallacy of this new and typically modern philosophy is relatively simple. It consists in describing and understanding the whole realm of human action, not in terms of the actor and the agent, but from the standpoint of the spectator who watches a spectacle. But this fallacy is relatively difficult to detect because of the truth inherent in it, which is that all stories begun and enacted by men unfold their true meaning only when they have come to their end, so that it may indeed appear as though only the spectator, and not the agent, can hope to understand what actually happened in any given chain of deeds and events.

The more successful you are in social science, the more you can explain who acts and why. By explaining “deeds and events” that have already happened, you make them look determined. You seek to reduce the unexplained variance. But when you are a social actor, it feels as if you are choosing and acting intentionally. The unexplained is a trace of your freedom.

Arendt does not assert that the spectator’s perspective is epistemically wrong, but that it reflects a political fallacy. It has the political consequence of reducing freedom.

On p. 46, she gives an example: the French Revolution has been understood in ways that hamper the agency and creativity of subsequent revolutionaries. She even argues that revolutionary leaders have submitted to being tried and executed because they assume that revolutions must end in terror. Thus all later upheavals have been

seen in images drawn from the course of the French Revolution, comprehended in concepts coined by spectators, and understood in terms of historical necessity. Conspicuous by its absence in the minds of those who made the revolutions as well as of those who watched and tried to come to terms with them, was the deep concern with forms of government so characteristic of the American Revolution, but also very important in the early stages of the French Revolution.

If you are a political agent, you believe that you can invent or reconstruct “forms of government” to reflect your considered opinions. Deliberate institutional design and redesign seems both possible and valuable. But if you think of history as inevitable and driven by grand forces (the World Spirit, the class struggle), by root causes (capitalism, racism), or by empirical factors (income, gender, technology), then institutional design seems to be an outcome, not a cause; and the designers appear to lack agency. “Civic Studies” can be seen as a reorientation of the humanities and social sciences so that they take an agentic perspective and therefore avoid the “political fallacy” of determinism.

See also: Roberto Unger against root causes and the visionary fire of Roberto Mangabeira Unger

The post Hannah Arendt and thinking from the perspective of an agent appeared first on Peter Levine.

The Theft of Democracy’s Memory

In his book, Knowledge in the Blood, Jonathan Jansen, the first black president of the University of the Free State in South Africa, explores how young Afrikaners can "hold firm views about a past they never lived." He proposes the idea of tacit memory, "knowledge in the blood," ways of thinking and acting that are handed down but usually unspoken. I would say memories can be negative or they can be positive.

I thought of both last week at the conference of the American Democracy Project and The Democracy Commitment. There is the legacy of prejudice just below the surface of rhetoric about America as a "post-racial society." And there is the view of democracy as a way of life with cultural, social, and economic dimensions. This view of democracy has been stolen. We all have played a role.

In New Orleans, the conference of state colleges and universities and community college, bringing together over 600 people, began with a brilliant speech by Nancy Cantor, chancellor of Rutgers University - Newark. Cantor conjured up what she called the "ghosts" of hibernating bigotry, drawing on a concept of Rupert Nacoste in his recent book Taking on Diversity. Nacoste wrote,

"We stay away from the interpersonal level where bigotry implicates us all. We leave it to our children to carry our baggage on their backs. Baggage they cannot see, but heavy baggage they can feel... Although it is we who have kept it safe and cool..., we are stunned when something happens to awaken that resting, hibernating bigotry."

Cantor described ghosts in the US and around the world, from racist chants in Oklahoma and the noose hanging from a tree at Duke University to xenophobic violence in South Africa and the wall emblazoned with violent images separating Protestant and Catholic neighborhoods in Belfast.

"We only need to look at images of Belfast, the U.S. border, Selma and Ferguson, and Johannesburg, South Africa, to know that we are not done with the ghosts that haunt our social and political landscapes," she said. Cantor detailed grim statistics of rising inequality and racial as well as economic and educational segregation.

Many scholars describe such challenges. For instance, Robert Putnam in his recent book, Our Kids, did an outstanding job of describing growing inequality. But few critics have many useful suggestions. Putnam simply proposes writing elected officials.

In contrast, Nancy Cantor combined an unflinching look at our troubles with the invocation of the vibrant tradition of democratic education and education for democracy as a resource for action. She recalled the view expressed by the philosopher John Dewey.

"We have taken democracy for granted," wrote Dewey in his 1937 essay, "Democracy in the Schools." Democracy, he argued, "has to be enacted anew in every generation, in every day and year, in the living relations of person to person in all social forms and institutions."

For Dewey education was at the heart of a democratic society, while democracy was the animating spirit of true education. "It is the main business of the family and the school to influence directly the formation and growth of attitudes and dispositions, emotional, intellectual and moral," he wrote. "Whether this educative process is carried on in a predominantly democratic or non-democratic way becomes...a question of transcendent importance not only for education itself but for...the democratic way of life."

Cantor located what they are doing at Rutgers University in Newark directly in this tradition. "The very same map of inequality that haunts us can just as well become a map of opportunity - in the context of the power and prevalence of education and innovation in a knowledge economy," she argued. "This is the time for higher education - across both public and private institutions -- to fully embrace its role in effecting that change - its public mission, its public promise." She gave many examples of what she calls "barn-raising public work," collaborations that bring together diverse publics on public challenges. These show what is possible when the older vision of democracy as the work of the people is revitalized.

She quoted the intellectual historian Scott Peters who wrote in his essay in the collection, Democracy's Education: Citizenship, Public Work and the Future of Colleges and Universities, "though it's not widely known or appreciated, engagement in public work is the very heart and soul of the 'democracy's college' tradition."

It is useful to recall that 20 years ago, in his 1995 State of the Union address, President Clinton spoke in a similar vein. He called Americans to a New Covenant around "the work of citizenship":

"If you go back to the beginning of this country, the great strength of America, as de Tocqueville pointed out when he came here a long time ago, has always been our ability to associate with people who were different from ourselves and to work together to find common ground. And in this day, everybody has a responsibility to do more of that. We simply cannot want for a tornado, a fire, or a flood to behave like Americans ought to behave in dealing with one another."

Clinton added that politicians were partly responsible for eroding the work of citizenship. "Most of us in politics haven't helped very much. For years, we've mostly treated citizens like they were consumers or spectators, sort of political couch potatoes who were supposed to watch the TV ads either promise them something for nothing or play on their fears and frustrations." Clearly lay citizens have also forgotten.

In this coming election season we need to challenge ourselves and candidates of whatever party and at whatever level to recall the work of citizenship. And we need to ask candidates to stop pretending they will fix our problems by themselves. These are the questions to pose:

What are your plans to revitalize democracy as a way of life?

And how would you involve the people?"

Harry Boyte is editor of Democracy's Education.

Participatory Budgeting – Vallejo (CA), US

Author: 
Participatory Budgeting - Vallejo (CA), US CASE DESCRIPTION Summary Vallejo was the first city in the United States to implement city wide Participatory Budgeting Practice, as thousands are participating to make calls and to brainstorm ideas that would affect them and they are working with Participatory Budgeting Project (PBP) to...

Three New Papers (and a presentation) on Civic Tech

CaptureFMS

This blog has been slow lately, but as I mentioned before, it is for a good cause. With some great colleagues I’ve been working on a series of papers (and a book) on civic technology. The first three of these papers are out. There is much more to come, but in the meantime, you can find below the abstracts and link to each of the papers. I also add the link to a presentation which highlights some other issues that we are looking at.

  • Effects of the Internet on Participation: Study of a Public Policy Referendum in Brazil.

Does online voting mobilize citizens who otherwise would not participate? During the annual participatory budgeting vote in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul in Brazil – the world’s largest – Internet voters were asked whether they would have participated had there not been an online voting option (i-voting). The study documents an 8.2 percent increase in total turnout with the introduction of i-voting. In support of the mobilization hypothesis, unique survey data show that i-voting is mainly used by new participants rather than just for convenience by those who were already mobilized. The study also finds that age, gender, income, education, and social media usage are significant predictors of being online-only voters. Technology appears more likely to engage people who are younger, male, of higher income and educational attainment, and more frequent social media users.

Read more here.

  • The Effect of Government Responsiveness on Future Political Participation.

What effect does government responsiveness have on political participation? Since the 1940s political scientists have used attitudinal measures of perceived efficacy to explain participation. More recent work has focused on underlying genetic factors that condition citizen engagement. We develop a ‘Calculus of Participation’ that incorporates objective efficacy – the extent to which an individual’s participation actually has an impact – and test the model against behavioral data from FixMyStreet.com (n=399,364). We find that a successful first experience using FixMyStreet.com (e.g. reporting a pothole and having it fixed) is associated with a 54 percent increase in the probability of an individual submitting a second report. We also show that the experience of government responsiveness to the first report submitted has predictive power over all future report submissions. The findings highlight the importance of government responsiveness for fostering an active citizenry, while demonstrating the value of incidentally collected data to examine participatory behavior at the individual level.

Read more here.

  • Do Mobile Phone Surveys Work in Poor Countries? 

In this project, we analyzed whether mobile phone-based surveys are a feasible and cost-effective approach for gathering statistically representative information in four low-income countries (Afghanistan, Ethiopia, Mozambique, and Zimbabwe). Specifically, we focused on three primary research questions. First, can the mobile phone survey platform reach a nationally representative sample? Second, to what extent does linguistic fractionalization affect the ability to produce a representative sample? Third, how effectively does monetary compensation impact survey completion patterns? We find that samples from countries with higher mobile penetration rates more closely resembled the actual population. After weighting on demographic variables, sample imprecision was a challenge in the two lower feasibility countries (Ethiopia and Mozambique) with a sampling error of /- 5 to 7 percent, while Zimbabwe’s estimates were more precise (sampling error of /- 2.8 percent). Surveys performed reasonably well in reaching poor demographics, especially in Afghanistan and Zimbabwe. Rural women were consistently under-represented in the country samples, especially in Afghanistan and Ethiopia. Countries’ linguistic fractionalization may influence the ability to obtain nationally representative samples, although a material effect was difficult to discern through penetration rates and market composition. Although the experimentation design of the incentive compensation plan was compromised in Ethiopia and Zimbabwe, it seems that offering compensation for survey completion mitigated attrition rates in several of the pilot countries while not reducing overall costs. These effects varied across countries and cultural settings.

Read more here.

  • The haves and the have nots: is civic tech impacting the people who need it most? (presentation) 

Read more here.