Modern democracies are increasingly criticized for failing to keep pace with social complexity and the information explosion. Institutional feedback loops, polarization, and the polarization of political discourse are all problems that traditional democratic processes struggle to address. In this context, it is particularly timely to ask the question: how can we bring the “thinking people” back into decision-making—that is, how can citizens not just be passive voters but actually form their opinions and make informed decisions?

James S. Fishkin, an American political scientist and communication theorist, has become one of the greatest names in deliberative democracy and the so-called deliberative polling®. Fishkin’s goal is not merely to create a theoretical model, but to develop institutional innovations that can bring the quality of democratic decision-making – the weighing of arguments, the information, the formation of consensus – back into political practice.

According to Fishkin, in elected democracies, the key is not simply the question of participation or elections, but how well-considered, well-founded and ethically-based the opinions of citizens are. The essence of deliberative public opinion research is that a representative sample is randomly selected, then the participants are given balanced background materials presenting arguments from several sides, participate in moderated debates, and finally ask the same questions again to see how opinions change as a result of deliberation. This method combines representativeness and the formation of reflected opinion – according to Fishkin, this is what “democracy means to people who think about it.”

The central claim of Fishkin’s work is that the greatest challenge in modern democracies is not the act of choosing, but the knowledge and reasoning on which voters base their decisions. The incorporation of deliberative mechanisms therefore improves not only the quantity of participation, but also its quality. In doing so, Fishkin has outlined a direction for reform that measures the legitimacy of democracy not in the counting of opinions, but in their thoughtfulness. (Fishkin, 2018)

The experiments he led – such as America in One Room (2019) or the Chinese Zeguo Project (2010) – have both demonstrated that deliberation can reduce political polarization, increase public policy knowledge, and facilitate consensus-building.

Fishkin is therefore not only one of the most important theorists of deliberative democracy, but also its most practical innovator. His work forms a bridge between political theory and experimental social science, and directly inspires contemporary urban and municipal participatory models – such as the Hungarian community assembly initiatives, in which methodological elements of citizen deliberation already appear. (Szabó, 2020)

1. Theoretical foundations of participatory and deliberative democracy

Classical theories (Rousseau, Habermas, Dahl, etc.)

The roots of participatory and deliberative democracy extend far beyond the boundaries of modern social science: these theories are nourished by the classical traditions of political philosophy. In the development of democratic thought, three decisive authors — Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Jürgen Habermas, and Robert A. Dahl — laid the theoretical foundations on which deliberative and participatory models could later build. The central question in the works of these thinkers is always the same: how can a society enforce the public will in such a way that decisions are not only formally democratic, but also just, considered, and legitimate in their content.

In his work “The Social Contract” (Du contrat social), published in 1762, Jean-Jacques Rousseau defined the foundations of the political community in the collective will, the so-called volonté générale. According to Rousseau, man is free in his natural state, but he loses this freedom in the course of social coexistence, unless he is able to conclude a political contract in which individuals voluntarily renounce part of their natural freedom in order to create the general will of the community. This “general will” is not a mechanical sum of individual opinions, but a higher-order collective expression of interest aimed at serving the common good. The basis of democratic legitimacy is therefore that citizens actively participate in the creation of this general will: only in this way can true popular sovereignty be established. In this way, Rousseau emphasized the inseparable relationship between political participation and moral self-government, which remained a defining starting point for later participatory and deliberative theories. (Rousseau, 1762)

In the second half of the 20th century, Jürgen Habermas took this idea further in the theoretical framework of modern social communication and publicity. Habermas developed his theory of communicative action and discursive democracy in his monumental work Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns (1981) and later in Between Facts and Norms (1992). According to this view, the stability of democratic societies is not merely an institutional issue, but a communicative one: valid decisions are based on public reasoning, debate and mutual understanding. Habermas distinguishes between the “lifeworld” and the “system”: the former is the everyday communicative and cultural space between people, while the latter is the sphere of economic and bureaucratic structures. The crisis of modern democracies, he argues, lies in the fact that the logic of the system—efficiency, profit and administrative rationality—suppresses the communicative rationality of the lifeworld. The key to democratic renewal is therefore that political decisions are based not on interests but on arguments, and that public discourse is able to shape political will. Habermas therefore sees decision-making based on argumentation as the legitimizing basis of democracy, where communication is not a tool but the bearer of political rationality itself. (Susen, 2018)

The work of Robert A. Dahl complements the rational and institutional dimensions of deliberative theories. Dahl was the most influential democratic theorist of the second half of the 20th century, systematizing the conditions for democratic governance in his works Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (1971) and Democracy and Its Critics (1989). The central concept of his theory is polyarchy, which he defines as a realistic form of democracy that can be implemented in modern mass societies. Polyarchy is based on the dual principle of political competition and participation: the wider the political access and the more alternatives competing, the more democratic a system is. At the same time, Dahl also points out that formal rights are not enough for democratic participation: access to information, education and political knowledge is also necessary. He is critical of utopian forms of participatory democracy that ignore the structural constraints of large societies and the costs of decision-making. (Teorell, 2006)

What is common in the thinking of Rousseau, Habermas and Dahl is that they see the essence of democracy not only in the functioning of institutions, but also in the quality of political participation. Rousseau sees the articulation of collective moral will, Habermas the assertion of communicative rationality, and Dahl the institutional conditions of pluralism and informed participation as the basis of democratic legitimacy. Together, these three schools of thought define the theoretical horizon from which the concept of deliberative democracy grew. While Rousseau emphasized the moral force of the general will, Habermas emphasized discursive rationality, and Dahl emphasized practical feasibility, each of them was based on the recognition that democracy is not merely the summation of wills but also the weighing of opinions.

This theoretical triad provided the conceptual foundation on which contemporary deliberative democracy—and itswithin James S. Fishkin – models could be built. By combining Rousseau’s idea of the general will, Habermas’ argumentative rationality and Dahl’s institutional realism, Fishkin created an experimental form in which citizens can participate in the formation of the public will in a representative, informed and reasoned way. Deliberative democracy is thus both a philosophical legacy and a methodological innovation: the idea that the value of community decisions lies not in their quantity but in their thoughtfulness. (Uhlaner, 2015)

The concept of participation in political science

Regarding the concepts of deliberative and democratic models, it is important to understand that participation as a concept in political science is very diverse and controversial. It simultaneously means the active presence, intervention, and intention of citizens to influence political processes, but what exactly “active participation” is, what forms it takes, and under what conditions it can be interpreted is already a subject of theoretical debate.

According to the classic definition, political participation is any voluntary activity that aims to influence public policy or public affairs, directly or indirectly. This definition includes that participation is not only voting: it can include participating in campaign work, signing petitions, writing letters of complaint, protesting, collecting signatures, participating in opinion polls, etc.

An important dimension of participation is the ability and motivation: the extent to which a citizen feels that he or she can influence political processes. The OECD paper Political Efficacy and Participation addresses this issue, analyzing how much people trust themselves to have a say, and how this affects their actual participation. (OECD, 2021)

In summary, the concept of participation in political science is not static, but multidimensional. It includes active forms of citizen intervention, but also takes into account the motivational, communicative and institutional conditions that influence who can actually participate and to what extent. This complex concept provides the basis for later understanding why deliberative mechanisms are needed that not only offer the possibility of participation, but also seek to improve its quality.

The role of deliberation in democratic decision-making

Deliberation – i.e. the confrontation and consideration of arguments, opinions, justifications – occupies a central place in the theory of deliberative democracy. While the traditional democratic model emphasizes the summation of preferences (e.g., elections, voting), the deliberative approach claims that for a just and legitimate decision it is not enough to simply count the positions: they must be developed in a thoughtful form, with mutually conflicting arguments. (Gutmann et al., 2016)

The study Deliberative Democracy and Political Decision Making examines in detail how the role of deliberation can appear at multiple levels: be it the level of informal civil debates, community forums, or even institutionalized deliberative bodies. The authors point out that deliberative processes are not just “conversations,” but timed, moderated, structured debates in which participants try to give each other understandable reasons and modify their own views in light of the shared reasoning.

The legitimizing role of deliberation is that a decision becomes truly acceptable to citizens when it is not shaped by hidden power relations, not by force, not by manipulative communication, but by transparent arguments. From this perspective, the deliberative model claims that the legitimacy of democracy is not simply the will of the majority, but by decisions based on argument and reflection. The article “What Is Deliberative Democracy?” for example emphasizes that it is the responsibility of both citizens and representatives to justify their decisions with reasons — this elevates the deliberative model above mere voting.

However, deliberation is not a panacea: critics point out that if there are large social inequalities among the participants, deliberation can become a deceptive illusion that masks real power asymmetries. Others argue that deliberation on certain issues becomes merely a superficial debate if structural power relations are involved. (Greenet al., 2019)

Thus, the role of deliberation in democratic decision-making is multifaceted: firstly, as a quality improvement mechanism that supports higher-quality decisions through the confrontation of arguments; secondly, as a legitimizing component that strengthens the acceptance of the decision; thirdly, as a link between citizens and institutional decision-makers. A well-designed deliberative process is therefore not just a nice idea, but can be a tool that increases both the efficiency and credibility of democracy.

2. The life and work of James S. Fishkin

Biography of James S. Fishkin

Fishkin received his B.A. degree from Yale College in 1970, summa cum laude, in political science and philosophy. He later received his doctorate in political science from Yale, with honors in 1975, and his Ph.D. in philosophy from Cambridge University in 1976. (Fishkin, 2018)

He began his teaching career at Yale University, where he served as Assistant Professor of Political Science from 1975 to 1979, and Associate Professor from 1979 until 1984. He then joined the University of Texas at Austin, where he taught as a professor from 1984 and later held distinguished chairs, including the Darrell K. Royal Regents Chair in Ethics and American Society.

In September 2003, Fishkin became a professor at Stanford University, where he holds the Janet M. Peck Chair in International Communication and is the director of the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab. He also teaches in the Department of Communication and holds an ex officio appointment in political science.

His published work is extensive: his books include Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform (1991), The Voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy (1995), Deliberation Day with Bruce Ackerman (2004), When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (2009), and Democracy When the People Are Thinking (2018).

Fishkin’s best-known concept is Deliberative Polling®, which has been used to conduct more than 100 deliberative polls in approximately 28 countries around the world, including the United States, China, Uganda, Brazil, and Bulgaria. He is credited with the experimental procedures in which citizens are representatively involved in debates, provided with information, and then measured for changes in their opinions, thus testing what public opinion would be like if people could think about issues longer and more thoroughly.

Fishkin’s academic and institutional career can therefore be measured not only in the number of publications he has published, but also in where and how he has shaped the possibilities for institutionalizing deliberative democracy. His biography provides an understanding of the expertise and institutional embeddedness of someone who wants to make deliberation a tool for democratic reforms. (Stanford University, n.d.)

His main works

The central pillars of James S. Fishkin’s oeuvre are books and studies that provide not only theoretical frameworks for deliberative democracy, but also methodological and practical recommendations for democratic reforms. (American Philosophical Society, 2020)

One of his most recent and perhaps most comprehensive works is Democracy When the People Are Thinking: Revitalizing Our Politics Through Public Deliberation (2018). In this book, Fishkin examines why today’s democratic systems work well or poorly in terms of the ideal of a “thinking people.” The work nuances the dilemma of listening to the people—who are sometimes irrational or poorly informed—or trusting experts and “elites,” which can take decision-making away from citizens. Fishkin proposes that we connect these two poles through institutionalized deliberative forums, and shows how citizens can be representatively involved in debates, provided with balanced information.

Another mainstay of his work is When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (2009). In it, Fishkin compares his theoretical designs with their practical applications, and reports on how deliberative projects work in the United States, China, Great Britain, Denmark, Italy, Bulgaria, and other countries. The book also shows how deliberation can be linked to public policy decisions with meaningful impact, for example, through influence on renewable energy policies in Texas, or investments in wastewater treatment in China. (Fishkin, 2009)

In addition to Fishkin’s books, several studies are also of outstanding importance, in which he summarizes the results of several deliberative public opinion polls to date, and in particular examines the issues of information, consolidation, and preference ordering. (Fishkin, 1996) (Fishkin, 2000) (Fishkin, 2016)

Fishkin’s main works therefore work together on three levels: theoretical foundation, practical application with case studies, and methodological innovations, all of which together form the intellectual and reform-oriented arc that made him not just a theoretical author, but one of the most important constructors of deliberative democracy.

Scientific and practical impact

Fishkin’s greatest scientific contribution is the development and dissemination of the methodology of deliberative polling (Deliberative Polling®). In the study Deliberative Polling and Public Consultation, Fishkin and Luskin demonstrate how deliberative processes contribute to public policy decision-making.

Fishkin’s scientific impact is that he brought methodological innovation to political science and supported his theoretical claims with empirical experiments. His practical impact can be measured by the fact that his deliberative processes have been applied in real political contexts and have brought about changes in public policy and even in the structure of public opinion. Thus, Fishkin is both a scholar and a reformer: his work is a bridge between democratic theory and democratic practice. (Stanford University, n.d.)

3. Deliberative Polling® as Fishkin's main innovation

Steps of the method

Deliberative Polling® is James S. Fishkin’s best-known and most widely used innovation: it aims to measure in a representative way what a community would think if its citizens had more information and opportunities. The method combines the advantages of conventional public opinion polling and deliberation and consists of the following main steps.

The first step is to select a representative sample at the national or local level. The aim is to ensure that the sample is socially representative – by selecting according to age, gender, geographical location, education, etc. This sample is used to complete the first questionnaire (baseline questions), which are the same topics that will later be the subject of deliberation. (Bradburn, 1998)

The participants are sent balanced background materials, often edited by experts, which present the main alternatives, the weight of arguments and counterarguments, statistics, and possible consequences. These materials — in written or digital form — are intended to help participants develop informed positions rather than simply irrational preconceptions. They can also be made public so that non-participants can access them.

The next step is face-to-face deliberation. Participants usually gather at a weekend event (or a day or several days), where:

Small group discussions: participants discuss the topics in randomly formed small groups, with a moderator leading the discussion to ensure that everyone has a chance to speak and the discussions remain balanced.

Plenary sessions: after the small group discussions, experts, panel discussions, and discussion sessions are held in front of the entire community, where there is an opportunity to ask questions and debate. Participants can ask questions and respond to each other’s points of view.
The role of the moderator is to minimize bias – not to lead, not to influence, but to facilitate the discussion, ensuring that everyone has a voice and freedom of argumentation prevails.

During this stage, participants are given the opportunity to engage in deeper argumentative thinking through the information provided earlier and through personal communication.

After the deliberation has taken place, the same questionnaire is filled out with the participants as before. This is used to measure how opinions have changed: how many people have modified their position, and in what direction the sample average has moved overall. The results allow for a quantitative examination of the change in opinion.

Often, the time between the initial and final survey (for example, 1–4 weeks) allows for reflection and information processing to continue, and for changes to be more than just momentary. Many Deliberative Poll projects also use experimental designs: one group of participants participates in deliberation, while the control group does not, so that the effects can be compared.

The final step is to publish the analyzed results and (if possible) incorporate them into public policy decision-making. The results are often presented to politicians, decision-makers and the public, detailed reports are prepared and recommendations can be formulated. It is also important to ensure transparency of the process and the publicity of the arguments, so that the public can see that deliberation is not a closed private discourse, but a process whose inputs, discussions and outputs are accessible. Fishkin also emphasizes this transparency in his work Democracy When the People Are Thinking. (Fishkin, 2020)

Why is it different from a traditional public opinion poll?

Deliberative Polling® starts with the same basic question as traditional public opinion polling: what do people think about a given political or social issue? However, Fishkin recognizes that the answer lies not in the sum of the opinions measured, but in the process of forming opinions. This means that deliberative public opinion polling does not measure a snapshot, but rather a potential: what the community would think if it had the opportunity to think, reason, and learn.

Traditional public opinion polling has been one of the most commonly used social science tools since the 1930s. Its goal is to show the public’s opinions on various issues through a representative sample in a statistically valid way. Although this method is useful for assessing the current state of public opinion, it has a number of theoretical and practical limitations. (Farrar et al., 2010)

According to Fishkin and Luskin, public opinion polls typically measure opinions at a low level of information: respondents often do not know the facts, have not seen alternative arguments, or have not thought through their positions consistently. Traditional surveys therefore measure “surface preferences” rather than mature, reflected opinions. In addition, the wording of questions, the limited response options, and time pressure can also distort responses. The result is often that “public opinion” is actually fragmented, noisy, and based on momentary impressions. This phenomenon is referred to in the literature as “top of the head opinion.”

Fishkin criticizes these measurements as not following the true logic of democracy: they do not show what people would actually think if they could talk about it, but only what they are thinking before they have a chance to think. Deliberative Polling®, on the other hand, is a process research: it examines the dynamics of opinion formation. While a traditional poll is a “static” snapshot, a deliberative poll is an interactive, time-extended, and learning-based process.

According to Fishkin’s definition of the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab, the goal of the method is not to find out “what people think,” but to show what they would think if they had sufficient information and the opportunity to think together. Behind this simple formulation lies a deep philosophical statement: democratic legitimacy depends not on quantity, but on quality.

In the method, a representative sample is randomly selected, and then the participants are invited to a multi-day meeting, where:

they receive balanced background materials,
they meet with experts and decision-makers,
they challenge their arguments in moderated small group discussions,
they fill out the same questionnaire at the beginning and end of the process, thus making it possible to measure the change in opinion

Deliberation is therefore not an alternative to representativeness, but its qualitative extension. The method thus forms a bridge between traditional public opinion polling and the theory of deliberative democracy: it combines empirical reliability with normative legitimacy.

The difference between the two models is best seen in the results. More than 100 experiments conducted in Deliberative Polling (in 28 countries) have consistently shown that deliberation:

participants show increased knowledge,
decreases in opinion extremism and polarization,
increases empathy and willingness to compromise,
increases in political self-efficacy

Traditional polls, on the other hand, often preserve polarization: they do not encourage participants to reason, and in fact, often reinforce existing attitudes through confirmation bias. Fishkin’s experiments, on the other hand, prove that during deliberation, people not only become more informed, but also more open to other points of view.

Deliberative polling is also a democratic pedagogy.

Participants not only express their opinions, but also learn about decision-making, the ethics of reasoning, and public communication. Therefore, many call Fishkin’s method not only a research tool, but also a “mini-democracy”: a laboratory of democratic discourse. (Fishkin et al., 2010) (Fishkin et al., 2019)

The OECD Report on Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions highlights that Deliberative Polling is one of the most important tools that can be used to institutionalize regular, structured citizen participation. Because it combines random representation and deliberative depth, it offers a model that can be adapted by local community assemblies, city forums, and even municipal strategies. (OECD, n.d.)

This is why it is particularly relevant for those who want to develop community participation in practice: Fishkin’s method shows how to democratize the process of opinion formation, not just the outcome. Local deliberative forums, such as district community assemblies, are applications of this logic – on a smaller scale, but with the same principles: representativeness, information, moderated debate, and documentation of opinion change.

Case studies

Deliberative Polling® has been applied by Fishkin and his colleagues in a variety of contexts, countries, and topics. These case studies show how the method works in real-world political and social settings, what results it produces, and what limitations it faces. The following examples illustrate the versatility of the method:

One of the most well-known and large-scale deliberative experiments was America in One Room. The project brought together 523 registered voters from the United States to discuss five major issues over four days: immigration, economy/taxation, health, environment (climate change), and foreign policy. Participants completed a questionnaire beforehand, received information packets, participated in moderated discussions, asked questions of experts in plenary sessions, and finally completed the same questionnaire again. In addition, a control group participated only in pre- and post-testing.

The event reduced political polarization on several issues: Republican and Democratic viewpoints converged on certain topics.
The participants’ knowledge level increased, their reasoning skills improved, and many modified their positions in response to new information.
The researchers claim that the event demonstrated that a deliberative forum is capable of moving public opinion in a structured debate — not with drastic swings, but with reasonable shifts open to consensus.

The study, Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China, shows how Fishkin’s method was successfully applied in a small-town Chinese context, where democratic traditions are particularly limited. In the city of Zeguo, a representative sample of local residents initially completed a questionnaire, then received information materials, then participated in small-group discussions and plenary discussions, and finally completed a post-test. The process was designed to help citizens prioritize infrastructure investment proposals, including on topics such as public utilities, environmental protection, and urban infrastructure development. The research also shows that even in a political environment with weaker democratic control, deliberation can operate effectively on a smaller scale and can have a real impact on political processes in localized decision-making.

One of the difficulties of the Chinese experiment was that the political culture of the participants was not accustomed to open debate — therefore, great emphasis was placed on moderation and balanced information.
The study critically depicts the extent to which local decision-makers take into account the proposals of the deliberative project — in not all cases the results were included in formal decisions.
At the same time, it also articulates the experience that such projects contributed to the awareness of civic participation and the spread of a culture of debate at the local level.

A case study can be mentioned in the energy policy deliberative research in Texas. The study Listening to Customers: How Deliberative Polling Helped details how Fishkin’s method was used there to integrate consumer opinions into energy decisions. The participants of the deliberations discussed solar energy, renewable energy, and energy efficiency after completing a preliminary questionnaire, receiving relevant information materials, and then participating in moderated group discussions. The results showed that companies and regulators took consumer preferences into account in energy policy decisions: public opinion data measured during deliberation were incorporated into regulatory processes and also had an impact on support for renewable energy sources. The study highlights that the data from the deliberative process provided “political legitimacy” for decision-makers – that is, Deliberative Polling® acted not only as a scientific measurement tool, but also as a political tool that strengthened the social acceptance of decisions.

Deliberation increases civic competence and a sense of responsibility.
Participants became more informed, evaluated policy issues more nuanced, and were able to form consensual, public-interest positions in a greater proportion.
The quality of decision-making improves.
By building debates on informed information and moderated reasoning, the preferences obtained do not reflect momentary moods, but rather considered citizen opinions.
Increasing political legitimacy.
The results of the deliberative process – as was seen in the Zeguo case and in energy policy research – strengthen the social empowerment of decision-makers, because policy directions are backed by demonstrable, informed social support.
The method also works in non-democratic or hybrid systems.
Even where democratic control is weak, deliberation can open up political space and influence institutional thinking at the local level.
The new role of public opinion polling: measurement becomes participation.
Deliberative Polling® is not just data collection, but a social learning process: public opinion is not an object, but an active shaping factor in politics.
The method can be adapted to different policy areas.
From infrastructure development to energy policy, deliberation in various sectors can involve the public and incorporate their preferences into decisions.

The study, “An Experiment within a Deliberative Poll,” is a methodological case study: it examines the elements of deliberation (e.g., information, discussion) that are responsible for opinion change through experimental data from the New Haven deliberative poll. The study used an “external control group” logic to separate the effect of deliberation from the simple provision of information.

The researchers concluded that formalized deliberation (i.e., structured discussion) itself has a significant effect on opinions, not just the flow of information.

The data also showed that deliberation reduces the variance of opinions and results in stronger alignment between preferences and demographics (i.e., more organized community will).

This study serves as an interesting technical model: it helps to understand that the internal mechanisms of deliberation—not just information—are important in shaping the outcome.

A smaller-scale, but pedagogically important example is when a deliberative model was applied in school communities. Depolarizing Through Deliberation in Civics Education: Case Study reports that they organized debates among high school students on political issues (e.g., economic reforms, health care), and observed that deliberation moderated extremist views.

During the debates, extremist positions did not become stronger, but rather they were reduced – so deliberation helped to reduce polarization.
According to the feedback of the participants, the opportunity to argue, learn about other perspectives, and think together was valuable.

This case is particularly relevant from the point of view of community development, because it shows that the deliberative process can be applied to younger generations – and can have an impact on public discourse, the culture of debate. (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2003) (List & Luskin, 2003) (Center for Deliberative Democracy, 2012)

The impact of the method on public policy decisions

The deliberative model developed by Fishkin — Deliberative Polling® — has become one of the most important exports of democratic innovation in many parts of the world over the past three decades. The impact of the method has grown far beyond its original experimental context: it has been adopted and adapted by local governments, regional governments, international organizations, and civil society networks. As a result, various forms of deliberative procedures (citizens’ councils, community assemblies, participatory budgets) increasingly constitute a new layer of democratic governance.

Fishkin’s method originally aimed to balance representativeness and reasoned deliberation. The forms that have grown from it do not always preserve the rigorous sociological basis of Deliberative Polling, but they carry in their methodological DNA the key elements: random selection, information, moderated debate, and measurable impact. The OECD’s 2020 report Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions specifically cites Fishkin’s work as a major precursor to the international spread of “deliberative mini-publics.”

The report analyzes 289 case studies from 33 countries and finds that the number of deliberative processes has increased sevenfold since 2010 — especially at the local level. This “deliberative turn” can be directly linked to the methodological impact of Fishkin’s models: the processes developed at the Stanford Lab (balanced background materials, moderation standards, pre- and post-measurement) have standardized the practical face of deliberation worldwide.

The principles of Deliberative Polling have permeated the practice of urban and district community development in recent years. A deliberative assembly (citizens’ assembly or community assembly) is a scaled-down model that retains all the steps of the Fishkin process, but focuses on local issues: public spaces, green infrastructure, social programs, climate adaptation. (OECD, 2020)

According to the OECD (2021) Eight Ways to Institutionalise Deliberative Democracy, the main characteristics of local-level applications are:

low entry threshold (smaller sample, shorter deliberation time, often held over weekends),
high social
embeddedness (civil society organizations, local government partners),
direct decision-making relationship (e.g. district council or urban development council).

The Fishkin deliberative model has become the “infrastructure” of democratic decision-making. What was initially an experimental political science method has now become an institutionalized form of participation that has proven its effectiveness on several continents and at various levels of government.
Common features everywhere:

balanced information structure,
moderated dialogue,
measurable change of opinion,
public policy integration.

Both international and local examples show that deliberative forums and community assemblies are not only “corrective tools” of democracy, but also new learning spaces: they give citizens the opportunity to participate in shaping a common future. (OECD, 2021)

4. Fishkin model in practice: deliberative forums, citizen councils, community meetings

Local and international applications

According to the OECD (2021) Eight Ways to Institutionalise Deliberative Democracy, the main characteristics of local-level applications are:

low entry threshold (smaller sample, shorter deliberation time, often held over weekends),
high social embeddedness (civil society organizations, local government partners),
direct decision-making relationship (e.g. district council or urban development council).

balanced information structure,
moderated dialogue,
measurable change of opinion,
public policy integration.

Organizing the process: informing, moderating, feedback

The essence of the deliberative process is not just for citizens to express their opinions, but for them to do so in a well-founded, mutually listened to and thoughtful manner. According to Fishkin, a well-organized deliberative forum is not a field of “free speech debate” but an institutionally choreographed learning process. These three organizational pillars — information, moderation, feedback — ensure that deliberation is not just a social event, but a process with decision-making value. (Fishkin, 2020)

The quality of deliberation directly depends on the information available to the participants. Fishkin emphasized from the beginning that citizens are unable to make informed decisions if they are not aware of the real structure of arguments, counterarguments, consequences and dilemmas. The information component is built on three basic principles:

Balance – the materials contain all important arguments and points of view, with equal weight, and with expert review.
Understandability – the wording is not technocratic, but plain; the goal is not to persuade, but to facilitate understanding.
Accessibility – all participants receive the materials in the same way, whether online or in print.

According to Fishkin, balanced information is a democratic innovation in itself, because it systematically counteracts the one-sidedness that is common in political communication.

The preparation of information materials requires an independent “background material committee”, which includes experts, civil society organizations and researchers from both sides. The task of this committee is to ensure balance in controversial issues and to ensure that the materials are released for preliminary public comment. Thus, information is not just preparation, but the first level of deliberation — where participation already begins with the formation of knowledge. (Fishkin, 2020)

In international practice, good information uses several formats:

Thematic background booklets
Interactive data visualizations
Expert Q&A sessions

The point in all cases is that the deliberative process does not start from scratch – participants build on a shared, controlled knowledge base.

Moderation is not a neutral logistical function, but is key to the quality of deliberation.
In the study Deliberative Polling and Public Consultation, Fishkin and Luskin write: the best predictor of the success of deliberation is not the topic or sample composition, but the moderator’s ability to create a safe, balanced communication environment.

Good moderation follows three basic principles:

Neutrality – the moderator is not an opinion-former, but a process manager; he does not make value judgments, but only helps to structure the discussion.
Equality – ensures that all participants have a chance to speak and that the discussion is not dominated by the louder or more educated actors.
Empathy and focus – help participants maintain a balance between emotional and rational arguments and prevent the discussion from drifting.

Deliberation does not end when the debate is over. According to Fishkin, one of the biggest mistakes governments make is to “let go of the participants’ hands after the process” — this destroys trust and a sense of meaning. The purpose of feedback is for participants to see what has happened to the results they have worked on.

The OECD Report on Innovative Citizen Participation distinguishes three levels of feedback:
Immediate feedback – at the end of deliberation, decisions are summarized and a jointly agreed final document is produced.
Institutional feedback – the results are formally adopted by decision-makers, placed on the agenda, and a written response is provided on which proposals are incorporated.
Public feedback – the results of the entire process, documents and the responses of decision-makers are publicly available (online archive, website, community space).

Integrated process management – the triad of information, moderation and feedback – provides the fundamental logic for organizing the deliberative process. These three pillars do not operate linearly, one after the other, but form an interwoven, cyclical system in which information, dialogue and processing of results continuously feed back on each other. A well-designed deliberative process is not simply a series of steps, but a self-reflexive learning mechanism in which knowledge, debate and decision mutually build on each other. (Fishkin, 2020)

The first element, information, creates the common knowledge base. Deliberation can only be meaningful if participants have access to balanced, pre-validated information that presents multiple perspectives and summarizes the essence of the issues at stake in a comprehensible way. This preparation is not a purely technical task: it is part of democratic learning, in which citizens are confronted with the fact that decisions are based on complex data, dilemmas and consequences. Shared information creates the condition for a debate to be a balancing of arguments rather than a clash of opinions.

The second pillar, moderation, ensures that the structure of deliberation is transparent and fair. The role of the moderator is not to influence the content, but to guarantee that everyone can speak, that the debate is not dominated by loud or dominant actors, and that participants from different social backgrounds can participate in the dialogue on an equal footing. A well-moderated deliberation is thus not just a debate, but a communal learning: people experience how to cooperate in the midst of conflicts, hear each other’s arguments, and jointly make new discoveries. The depth of deliberation is therefore not determined by the disappearance of differences of opinion, but by the quality of the movement between arguments.

The third element, feedback, closes and at the same time restarts the process. This is the point where deliberation moves from public dialogue to the world of decision-making. The task of feedback is to let participants see what decision-makers have done with the results they have developed: which proposals have been adopted, how institutions have responded, and in what form community recommendations have been incorporated into the processes. This is not just an administrative gesture, but a trust-building mechanism — the basis for the credibility of citizen participation. If the feedback after deliberation is clear, documented, and public, the community feels that its opinion matters; if it is not, the process loses its legitimacy.

From the perspective of community development, this triple logic is the key to success. Deliberation does not work because many people are present, but because participants participate meaningfully, equally, and in an informed manner. Informing means preparing the professional background and providing balanced information — whether in the form of local fact sheets or easily understandable expert summaries. Moderation is the engine of community trust: it requires neutral facilitators who lead the discussion not on the content level, but on the process level. Feedback ensures that participants feel that what they have said actually shapes decisions. The unity of these three elements determines whether deliberation remains a one-off, celebratory event or becomes a self-sustaining democratic mechanism in which the community continuously learns about itself and decision-makers gain real social legitimacy. (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2003) (American Philosophical Society, 2020)

Democratic legitimacy and decision-making embeddedness

The key to the success of deliberative democracy is not simply that people can have their say, but that the process itself has a democratic quality. According to Fishkin, a deliberative process is not democratic if many people participate in it, but if the process reflects the thinking public opinion of society as best as possible. Democratic legitimacy therefore does not stem solely from the quantity of participation, but from the quality of deliberation.

Fishkin uses the concept of the chain of legitimacy to describe the three factors that form the basis of democratic validity: the credibility of information, the fairness of the debate, and the traceability of the results. A process is legitimate only if the participants truly represent society, the deliberation listens to all voices, and the final proposals feed back into political decision-making. These three elements together create what the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab Process Design Framework calls “deliberative integrity” – that is, the assurance that the procedure is a genuine democratic decision-making mechanism, not a communication experiment.

The democratic legitimacy of a deliberative process can always be interpreted in two dimensions: horizontal and vertical. In the horizontal sense, it means that the group of participants is socially and demographically representative, and that everyone can have a say in the deliberation on equal terms. This is the “micro-democratic” legitimacy that is born within the process. In the vertical sense, however, the question is how deliberation fits into the political system – that is, how it relates to elected bodies, public administration, and formal decision-making chains. The two levels build on each other: internal legitimacy alone is not enough if the results do not find an institutional recipient; at the same time, political embeddedness does not provide democratic value if the process is not fair and transparent.

The question of democratic legitimacy arises at the very beginning of the deliberative process. The random selection and statistical representativeness of the participants ensure that a “miniature mirror” of the community sits at the table. This was formulated by Fishkin in the 1990s as the principle of the “microcosm of the public”, which has since become the basic theoretical concept of deliberative democracy. This microcosm has democratic weight because in it, randomness and diversity together create a kind of “mini-popular sovereignty”: a communal body that, albeit on a small scale, recreates the entire logic of democracy – orientation, deliberation and decision.

However, deliberation only becomes a legitimate source in a political sense if decision-makers recognize the process as part of governance. This is called decision-making embeddedness. Fishkin recognized early on that deliberative processes often “float” above the political system – inspiring but ineffective – and therefore proposed the creation of so-called institutional feedback loops, in which the results of deliberation are formally incorporated into the decision-making process. The Texas Energy Project and the Chinese Zeguo experiment provided examples of this: in both cases, a pre-defined protocol was used to record how the results would be received by official decision-makers.

The degree and form of embedding can vary. The OECD’s 2020 report Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions distinguishes three types: consultative, co-creative and decision-making models. Consultative deliberations, such as America in One Room, aim to gain a deeper understanding of public opinion; preparatory models, such as the Irish Citizens’ Assembly, inspire concrete legislation; while delegative types – such as Zeguo’s city budget – directly influence political priorities. Research clearly shows that the more closely deliberation is linked to the institutional decision-making chain, the greater the increase in civic trust and willingness to participate. (OECD, 2020)

Referring to Habermas’s theory of communicative action, Fishkin argues that deliberative processes reflect the communicative rationality of decision-making: here, citizen arguments are not “symbolic” inputs, but part of the normative grounding. Therefore, embeddedness is not just a technical issue, but a way of sharing legitimacy: decision-makers delegate part of their own power to the deliberative community, thereby strengthening democratic self-reflection. (Fishkin, 2020)

The issue of democratic legitimacy is particularly acute at the local community level. A district or city community meeting can be considered legitimate if the process is transparent, the selection of participants is fair, the information is balanced, the moderation is fair, and the local government formally undertakes to include the results of the deliberation on the agenda and respond to them. This type of embeddedness creates what the literature calls a “participatory-deliberative feedback loop.” In this model, deliberation is not a decoration that complements politics, but an integrated part of decision-making: citizen dialogue feeds back into the formation of political will in a structured way. (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2003)

The Fishkin model effectively proposes a new democratic hierarchy: political will is not formed exclusively from the top down, but receives new inputs and legitimacy through horizontal deliberative spaces. This model is able to rebuild public trust because decision-making does not seem abstract, but can be reconstructed communally. This is how the deliberative process truly becomes “public policy”: citizen arguments are not merely taken into account, but become part of decision-making, and institutional decisions also better reflect community rationality.

Democratic legitimacy and decision-making embeddedness are therefore not separate levels, but two faces of the same process. One is substantive credibility, the other is institutional embeddedness; together they constitute what Fishkin calls “deliberative democracy in practice.” And this is precisely why this model is particularly suitable for local community development: because it is able to build a bridge between citizen participation and political responsibility, that is, between thinking public opinion and decision-making. (Fishkin et al., 2010)

5. Critical approaches and further developments

Limits

In the practical application of deliberative democracy, structural and methodological limitations quickly emerge that theoretical optimism does not automatically provide answers to. These limitations are not merely “technical difficulties,” but are more deeply rooted in how social power, resource distribution, and political institutions work. One of the most serious problems is the inequality of participation, which arises from the fact that people’s social position, cultural capital, and communication skills can amplify or suppress their own voices in the deliberative space. Alice Siu’s essay Deliberation & the Challenge of Inequality examines how, even when deliberations offer a “level playing field,” social differences—education, rhetorical skill, and security of presence—often cannot be “covered up.” Siu points out that historical power asymmetries do not disappear in a moderated debate simply because it creates a more level playing field—status, speaking skills, and argumentative style still play a role in micro-intermediate influences.

This criticism is particularly severe in cases where deliberation is intended to be open to groups that have traditionally been underrepresented. For example, in the case of marginalized communities with language barriers, undereducated populations, or minority groups—even though participation is guaranteed, some people may find it less comfortable or less effective to participate in the debate. Critics of deliberation argue that in this way the deliberative forum partly reproduces prevailing social hierarchies, only in a more subtle way. (Eschenbacher et al.,2001)

Even if participation inequality can be reduced by technical means (e.g. training, moderators, facilitator support), the challenge remains of how well a deliberative process can be allowed to respond to large-scale, complex social needs. This is indicated by the problem of scalability: as the size of a deliberative forum increases, maintaining quality becomes increasingly difficult. John Dryzek’s study The Prospects & Limits of Deliberative Democracy warns that many deliberative researchers prefer to work with mini-publics because deliberation in truly large communities can easily become destructive — the complexity, time constraints, and coordination costs put too much strain on the process.

Recently, a new trend has emerged: the demand for automated deliberation or digital scaling. Helen Landemore Can AI bring deliberative democracy to the masses? examines the extent to which AI can scale deliberative processes without losing the depth of reasoning and the subtle dynamics of interpersonal debate. While Landemore sees optimistic possibilities, he also points out that AI will never be able to replace elements of human interaction such as nonverbal gestures, empathy, or conflict management. (Amphilsociety, 2020)

The study “Five dimensions of scaling democratic deliberation” presents the work of DemNext researchers and analyzes the dimensions along which deliberation can be scaled: content, accessibility, time, infrastructure, and political embeddedness. This study highlights that even if it is technologically possible to extend deliberative elements to larger social dimensions, the challenge is to build “civic infrastructure” – that is, to create institutional and social networks that can sustain deliberation authentically, consistently, and continuously.

The scalability dilemma is also explored by other authors: for example, Germann’s 2024 paper Scaling Up? Unpacking the Effect of Deliberative Mini-publics points out that when trying to increase deliberative mini-publics (e.g., multiple parallel forums), the distribution of effects is not linear — certain focuses or topics “fly” better, while others suffer from coordination losses.

The resource requirement constraint is also not negligible. Deliberative processes – especially experiments according to the Fishkin model – come with high costs: they require not only financial outlay, but also organizational, administrative, research, and moderator capacity. The study Deliberative Polling Comes of Age, published in the journal Good Society, states that although deliberative polls are often presented as the “gold standard”, it should not be overlooked that organizing such events can often only be sustained with research resources, and not all political communities are able to maintain this costly model in the long term.

A common criticism of resource requirements is that many deliberative experiments operate as temporary ‘project methods’, without becoming permanent institutional elements. The study Deliberative Democracy and Political Decision Making draws attention to the fact that much research is based on ad hoc, one-off cases and does not examine the issue of long-term sustainability — that is, what happens after deliberation is completed and there is no regular resource or institutional structure behind it.

Furthermore, according to the comparative research A Study of Fifteen Minipublics from 2010-2018, although participants generally evaluate the process favorably (e.g. fair debate, participation), the degree of attitude change is often relatively small and does not follow the expectations of the process in a linear manner. This suggests that deliberation does not always bring about a marked shift in opinion, especially if the topics were moderated or had high consensus at the outset. (National Renewable Energy Laboratory, 2003) (Mansbridge, 2019)

New trends: deliberative mini-publics, hybrid assembly models

The latest wave of deliberative democracy is defined by two mutually reinforcing trends: the rapid spread of mini-publics (small, representative citizen bodies selected by lot) and hybrid assembly models that combine deep, small-group deliberation with some kind of broader, often digital, engagement. Mini-publics have now become a distinct democratic “genre”: citizen assemblies, councils, and panel-based procedures are emerging at municipal, national, and EU levels; each promises to incorporate Fishkin’s deep, informed deliberation into decision-making – either by making direct recommendations or by “pre-deliberating” social debates. According to the OECD comparative report, this “deliberative wave” accelerated after 2010: institutionalized mechanisms and typified forms emerged that set standards for drawing lots, balanced information, and moderated debate. The 2020 OECD Comprehensive Report and the 2021 Guide not only provide a case study, but also provide methods of embedding and evaluation criteria, which greatly improves the scalability and comparability of the models.

The democratic appeal of mini-publics lies in the fact that they recreate a pluralist society “on a small scale”: a microcosm created by drawing lots in which citizens discuss public policy dilemmas based on balanced background materials and then report publicly on recommendations. Support for the method is now no longer just a matter of principle: recent comparative research examines who supports deliberative mini-publics and in what political environments (for example, in the case of Switzerland, which is strong in direct democracy), and finds that political “losers” and groups more dissatisfied with institutions are particularly open to such forums. These studies provide important clues for local implementation: they indicate that the social legitimacy of minipublics is not homogeneous, and that the design should be tailored to the given political culture.

Hybrid assembly models have become a defining lesson of recent years, especially the pandemic. Hybrid is used here in three senses: firstly, an online–offline combination (personal weekend meetings and digital intermediate work periods), secondly, a combination of deep deliberation and broad involvement (open opinion gathering in addition to the minipublic, community platforms, targeted surveys), and thirdly, an institutional connection between citizen recommendations and decision-making responsibility (formal government accountability, monitoring). Comparative reviews of hybrid experiments conclude that the online component increases access and cost-effectiveness, while the personal phases preserve the elements of trust and empathetic learning; good practice consciously alternates between the two. A post-pandemic hybrid deliberation review published on arXiv suggests precisely this “triple hybridity” for quality and inclusive participation.

One of the “school examples” of hybrid models remains Ireland, where citizens’ assemblies have become the antechambers of national-level reforms. The abortion reform process shows particularly well how the drawn-out, deep deliberation is connected to the broad social decision: after a long, expert-supported deliberation, the citizens’ assembly made recommendations, which were put on the agenda by parliament and then legitimized by a referendum. According to empirical and legal-political analyses of this process, it was precisely this multi-stage – deliberative and decisional – architecture that made it possible to create stable social empowerment in a strongly value-based issue. The lesson is not that a referendum is needed at the end of every issue, but that the recommendations of the minipublic acquire real weight if their path to a formal decision is clear and there is institutional feedback.

“Hybrid” can be interpreted not only in terms of the channels, but also in terms of the combination of democratic tools. A growing body of theoretical work describes innovations that combine focused, small-group deliberation with large-scale voting or preference-setting processes (“hybrid democratic innovations”): the minipublic develops a set of alternatives and a system of arguments, and then a large-scale, perhaps online voting or “preference market”, arranges social acceptance. The aim of such hybrid innovations is to combine depth and breadth in a single process, while the deliberative quality is not dissolved in mass participation. (OECD, 2020)

For practical implementation, detailed manuals and “toolboxes” are now available, providing standards and checklists for all phases of hybrid planning – recruitment, information, moderation, ethics, evaluation. The OECD’s deliberative toolbox review and evaluation guidelines pay special attention to the inclusive design of online sessions, the accessibility of digital tools (especially for vulnerable groups), and the auditability of the results of hybrid processes in decision-making. An EU knowledge center infosheet also emphasizes this: a separate “technical-social” capacity needs to be built for hybrid meetings (platform, tools, training), because the quality of deliberation is now also determined by the digital infrastructure. (Side, 2022) (Hendriks & Michels, 2024)

6. The future of deliberative governance in Central European local government systems

The future of deliberative governance in Central Europe depends on whether the countries of the region will be able to transform their traditional understanding of democracy: from an electoral, vertical representation system to a model in which decision-making becomes a communal learning process. The deliberative approach does not require citizens to participate directly in all decisions, but rather that they have the opportunity to think before decisions are made — to understand, consider, question, and thus contribute more meaningfully to the formation of public policies. This paradigm shift represents the next level of development for Central European democracies. (Kübler, Gut & Heimann, 2025)

Due to the historical specificity of the region – the centralized administrative tradition and the dominance of central power – deliberative governance here is not simply a new method, but a cultural breakthrough. Until now, local government decision-making has typically taken place along formalized, expert, and legal logic, while citizen participation has in most cases been limited to expressing opinions or protesting. Deliberative practice, on the other hand, creates a communication space where the debate is not settled by the hierarchy of power, but by the power of arguments. If this practice is integrated into local government operations, it will not only be a democratic innovation, but also increase the efficiency of decision-making – since well-informed, jointly prepared decisions are easier to implement and have accepted.

The future of deliberative governance can be determined by three interrelated directions. The first is cultural change: accepting that decision-making is not the exclusive domain of power, but a community responsibility. This requires a new political attitude on the part of local leaders – the ability to be open, curious and patient. The second is capacity development: for deliberation to be successful, trained moderators, a professional support group, data, publicity and documented feedback are needed. Without these, deliberation remains only symbolic. The third direction is technological and organizational innovation, which can create scalable, yet human processes by combining personal and digital participation. The deliberative self-government of the future will likely operate in a hybrid form: local forums, online consultations, and community meetings will reinforce each other and form a decision-making ecosystem in a transparent structure. (Zhang, 2023)

The deliberative turn does not replace elected representation, but rather provides a missing dimension: dialogue before decisions. Central European cities and districts that are able to introduce such processes will not only be more democratic, but also smarter – because they will be able to make local knowledge, experience and community sensitivity part of politics. Deliberation builds a new type of trust in the long term: it strengthens faith not in the system but in each other, which is the basis of democratic stability.

The governance of the future in Central Europe will be successful if local governments act not only as executors of decisions, but also as facilitators of community learning. This role transforms the meaning of political power: leadership is no longer about ordering, but about thinking together. The Fishkin model is not a recipe in this process, but a framework: proof that democracy can redefine itself by returning to the ideal of the thinking citizen.

The future of deliberative governance is therefore not simply an institutional reform, but a change in perspective: the recognition that democratic quality is not measured by the speed of decisions, but by the depth of shared understanding behind them. If Central European local government systems can incorporate this recognition into their operations, they will not only be more democratic, but also more resilient – communities that are able not only to choose, but also to think together. (Kübler et al., 2025)

Final chapter

Deliberative democracy does not promise a new system, but a new spirit in democracy. Its essence lies in the recognition that human communities seek not merely governance but meaningful cooperation. In modern political systems, where the amount of information has grown at an unprecedented rate, the real challenge of decision-making is no longer how to share power, but how to share attention and understanding.

Deliberation is a form of communal thinking: a collective interpretation of political freedom. Where opinions do not simply compete but enter into dialogue with each other, democracy becomes more than a mechanism for choice—it becomes a shared reflection. This is where Fishkin’s thinking brings a new quality: it places not decision at the end of the process, but learning. The deliberative space is not a place to avoid conflicts, but to elevate them to the level of arguments.

The stability of human communities lies not in agreement, but in the possibility of agreement. Deliberative processes create this opportunity — that the encounter of different social situations, perspectives, and experiences should not be a source of opposition but of mutual understanding. Deliberation does not erase differences, but gives them meaning: it shows that democracy is not about identical opinions, but about thinking together.

The governance of the future will depend not only on the quality of decisions, but on the transparency of the paths leading to decisions. Deliberative governance is a key player in this future: a process that can bring politics back to the people without falling into the trap of populism. Decision-making based on reasoning, respect, and information is not only an ethical but also a strategic necessity.

The legacy of Fishkin’s thought is not a methodology but a principle: that social peace is not the result of unanimity, but the fruit of the courage of open, reasoned debate. Deliberation is the only known mechanism that can simultaneously teach and govern, build community and create responsibility.

Democracy does not live by itself, but by the attention and dialogue of the people who participate in it. The deliberative idea offers a new form of this attention: a public life in which the decision is not a period but a comma — part of a process in which the thinking person becomes a political factor again.

If there is a future for democratic society, it lies in this realization: that the greatest political act is not the vote, but attention. Deliberation does not promise a perfect democracy, only a more thoughtful one — and this is just enough to make politics human again.

Bibliography

American Philosophical Society. (2020). James S. Fishkin – Curriculum Vitae. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.amphilsoc.org/

Bradburn, N. M. (1998). Polls, Deliberative and Non-Deliberative. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.norc.org/

Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University. (2010). Final Report: Europolis – Deliberative Polling® for the European Union. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://deliberation.stanford.edu/

Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University. (2012). Deliberative Polling® on Energy and Environmental Policy Options in Japan. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://deliberation.stanford.edu/

Eschenbacher, J. F., Nakabe, K., & Suzuki, K. (2001). Flow Visualization of a Longitudinal Vortex in Drag-reducing Surfactant Flow. Journal of Visualization, 4, 331–339. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.researchgate.net/

Farrar, C., Fishkin, J. S., Green, D. P., List, C., Luskin, R. C. & Levy Paluck, E. (2010). Disaggregating deliberation’s effects: An experiment within a deliberative poll. British Journal of Political Science. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/

Fishkin, J. S. (1991). Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform. Yale University Press. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.uvm.edu/

Fishkin, J. S. (1996). Deliberative Polling®: Toward a Better-Informed Democracy. Stanford University. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://lkyspp.nus.edu.sg/

Fishkin, J. S. (2000). Deliberative polling and public consultation. Parliamentary Affairs, 53(4), 657–666. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://academic.oup.com/

Fishkin, J. S. (2009). When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation. Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://academic.oup.com/

Fishkin, J. S., He, B., Luskin, R. C., & Siu, A. (2010). Deliberative Democracy in an Unlikely Place: Deliberative Polling in China. British Journal of Political Science, 40(2), 435–448. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.cambridge.org/

Fishkin, J. S. (2016). Deliberative Democracy. In Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://emergingtrends.stanford.edu/

Fishkin, J. S. (2018). Curriculum Vitae of James S. Fishkin. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.ranlab.org/

Fishkin, J. S. (2018). Democracy When the People Are Thinking: Revitalizing Our Politics Through Public Deliberation. American Philosophical Society. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.amphilsoc.org/

Fishkin, J. S., Farrar, C., Kane, J., Luskin, R. C., & Siu, A. (2019). Is Deliberation an Antidote to Extreme Partisan Polarization? Reflections on “America in One Room”. Center for Deliberative Democracy, Stanford University. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://fsi9-prod.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/

Fishkin, J. S. (2020). James S. Fishkin – Curriculum Vitae / Biography. Download date: October 15, 2025, source: https://www.amphilsoc.org/

Green, J., Kingzette, J., & Neblo, M. (2019). Deliberative Democracy and Political Decision Making. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://polisci.osu.edu/

Gutmann, A. & Thompson, D. (2016). What Deliberative Democracy Means. In R. Blaug & J. Schwarzmantel (Eds.), Democracy. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/

Hendriks, F., & Michels, A. (2024). Exploring the Democratic Merits of Hybrid Democratic Innovation: Combining Deliberation and Voting in Participatory Budgeting New Style. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.tandfonline.com/

Kübler, D., Gut, R., & Heimann, A. (2025). Who supports deliberative mini-publics in a context of direct democracy? The role of trust and dissatisfaction. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.unige.ch/

List, C., & Luskin, R. C. (2003). Democracy in a New Key: Deliberative Democracy and Empirical Research. Paper presented at the Yale Conference on Deliberation and Decision Making. London School of Economics. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://personal.lse.ac.uk/

Mansbridge, J. (2019). Deliberative Polling Comes of Age. The Good Society, 27(1-2), 118–124. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.jstor.org/

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL). (2003). A Framework for Public Involvement in Wind Power Siting. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://docs.nrel.gov/

OECD. (n.d.). Open government and citizen participation. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.oecd.org/

OECD. (2020). Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.oecd.org/

OECD. (2021). Political Efficacy and Participation. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.oecd.org/

OECD. (2021). Eight ways to institutionalise deliberative democracy. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.oecd.org/

Rousseau, J.-J. (1762). The Social Contract. ETH Zurich – International Relations and Security Network. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.files.ethz.ch/

Side, K. (2022). ‘Changed Utterly’: The Citizens’ Assembly on the 8th Amendment. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://www.lectitopublishing.nl/

Stanford University. (n.d.) James S. Fishkin – Janet M. Peck Professor of International Communication. Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://profiles.stanford.edu/

Stanford University. (n.d.) What is Deliberative Polling®? Retrieved October 15, 2025, from https://deliberation.stanford.edu/

Szabó, A. (2020). Information and Decision – The Foundations of Democracy. Law and Politics Blog (ELTE Center for Social Sciences). Download date: 2025. October 15, source: https://jog.tk.elte.hu/

Susen, S. (2018). Jürgen Habermas: Between Democratic Deliberation & Deliberative Democracy. Download date: 2025. October 15, source: https://openaccess.city.ac.uk

Teorell, J. (2006). Three models of political participation. Download date: 2025. October 15, source: https://dl1.cuni.cz/

Uhlaner, C. (2015). Politics and Participation. Download date: 2025. October 15, source: https://www.researchgate.net

Zhang, W. (2023). Hybrid deliberation: Citizen dialogues in a post-pandemic era. Download date: 2025. October 15, source: https://arxiv.org/

The Model of Deliberative Democracy: James S. Fishkin and the Theory and Practice of Deliberative Polling

The model of thinking democracy

James S. Fishkin and the Theory and Practice of Deliberative Polling

Table of contents

Introduction