James S. Fishkin

Fra Demokratitankens Wiki
Spring til navigationSpring til søgning

James S. Fishkin

James S. Fishkin er amerikansk professor, leder af Center for Deliberative Democracy ved Stanford University, opfinder af Deliberative Polling og Deliberation Day. Fishkin er en af de pionerer der har ført den teoretiske idé om deliberativt demokrati til praksis.

Synonym: Jim Fishkin, James Fishkin.

Se også: When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (James S. Fishkin).


Fishkin om demokrati

Se Wiki artiklen When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (James S. Fishkin).


Kun James S. Fishkins artikler om deliberativt demokrati er medtaget her.


Artikler om James S. Fishkin


What if There’s a Better Way to Handle Our Democratic Debate

Af James S. Fishkin og Larry Diamond, New York Times, 29.08.2019.

"Americans can have serious and respectful conversations across our deep divides."

Britain Should Deliberate Before It Votes on Europe

Af James S. Fishkin og Bruce Ackerman, Huffington Post 17.06.2015:

Europolis and the European public sphere: Empirical explorations of a counterfactual ideal

Af Alice Siu, James S. Fishkin, Robert C. Luskin, European Union Politics, 06.05.2014:

Reviving Deliberative Democracy

Af James S. Fishkin, Democracy Gridlocked? Colloquium, Royal Academy of Belgium, 07.03.2014:

Deliberation by the People Themselves: Entry Points for the Public Voice

Af James S. Fishkin, Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy, 01.12.2013:

Initiatives Are Not the Best Way to Bypass Stalled Officials

Af James S. Fishkin, New York Times, 19.06.2013:

James Fishkin - Making Deliberative Democracy Real

(05:41), uddrag af foredrag af James S. Fishkin, Youtube, 05.06.2013:

Deliberation, Single-Peakedness, and the Possibility of Meaningful Democracy: Evidence from Deliberative Polling|Deliberative Polls

Af Christian List, Iain McLean, James S. Fishkin og Robert C. Luskin, The Journal of Politics, 07.01.2013:

Most People Are Rationally Ignorant

Interview med James S. Fishkin, The European, 13.08.2012:

Deliberating across Deep Divides

Af Robert C. Luskin, Ian O'Flynn, James S. Fishkin og David Russell, i Political Studies Volume 62, side 116-135. Udgivet af Political Studies Association, første gang 03.03.2012.


"Deeply divided societies would seem to be infertile ground for mass deliberation.'Enclave deliberation', among people on the same side, may well occur. But people on opposing sides may not trust one another, they may not listen with an open mind, or they may regard the other side's arguments as insincere cover for sectional interests. Perhaps, though, we underestimate their deliberative capacities? This article examines a deliberative poll (DP) in the Omagh area of Northern Ireland, a society having only recently emerged from protracted violence, reflecting and reinforcing the deep divide between Catholics and Protestants. The topic – the future of the local schools – was one on which many of the issues were heavily impinged by the Catholic–Protestant divide. We examine the extent to which a representative sample, including both Catholics and Protestants, was able to deliberate constructively and how the experience changed their policy attitudes and their opinions of one another."

The Deliberative Initiative: Returning direct Democracy to the People

Af James S. Fishkin, SFGate, 01.02.2012:

How to Fix California's Crises

Af James S. Fishkin, New York Times, 10.10.2011:

Making Deliberative Democracy Practical: Public Consultation and Dispute Resolution

Af James S. Fishkin, Ohio State Journal on Dispute Resolution, 07.09.2011:

Manipulation and Democratic Theory

Af James S. Fishkin, Manipulating Democracy: Democratic Theory, Political Psychology, and Mass Media, 07.03.2011:

When Citizens deliberate

Af James S. Fishkin, A New Science of Virtues, 2011:

Symposium: James S. Fishkin's When the People Speak

The Good Society, Volume 9, number 1, 2010:

The 58 ideas that could hold the key to bringing the election alive

Af James S. Fishkin, Independent, 08.01.2010:

Australia Deliberates 2001, Deliberative Poll: Mutual Understanding in an Ethnically Divided Space

Af Gladys Jiménez, James S. Fishkin og Alice Siu, Stanford University Press, 2009:

Town Halls by Invitation

Af James S. Fishkin, New York Times, 15.08.2009:

Returning Deliberative Democracy to Athens: Deliberative Polling for Candidate Selection

Af James S. Fishkin, Robert C. Luskin, John Panaretos, Alice Siu, og Evdokia Xekalaki, Center for Deliberative Democracy, 28.08.2008:

Deliberative Polling: distilling the crowd's wisdom

Af James S. Fishkin, OpenDemocracy, 12.10.2007:

The Nation in a Room

Af James S. Fishkin, Boston Review, 03.2006:

Deliberative Democracy in an Unlike Place: Deliberative Polling in China

Af James S. Fishkin, Center for Deliberative Democracy, 2006:

The Search for Democracy in China

Redigeret af Baogang He og Ethan J. Leib. Medforfattere; Chen Shengyong, Daniel A. Bell, Geoffrey Stokes, James S. Fishkin, John S. Dryzek, og Shawn Rosenberg. Palgrave MacMillan, 2006:

Deliberative Polling: From Experiment to Community Resource

Af James S. Fishkin og Cynthia Farrar, kapitel 5 i bogen The Deliberative Democracy Handbook. Udgivet af Jossey-Bass, 2005:

Experimenting with a Democratic Ideal: Deliberative Polling and Public Opinion

Af James S. Fishkin og Robert C. Luskin, Acta Politica 40, (284-298), 2005:

Debating Deliberative Democracy

Redigeret af James S. Fishkin og Peter Laslett, Blackwell Publicing Ltd, 2003:

Deliberation Day (Artikel)

Af Bruce Ackerman og James S. Fishkin, Journal of Political Philopsophy Volume 10 Number 2, 06.2002.

Ackerman og Fishkin præsenterer tankeeksperimentet Deliberation Day i 2002 i Journal of Political Philopsophy:

Deliberation and Referendum Voting

Af Ian McAllister, James S. Fishkin, John Higley, Pamela Ryan, og Robert C. Luskin. Sammenligning af resultater fra en deliberative poll og en folkeafstemning om den australske forfatning i 2001, 2002:

Deliberative Polling: Toward a Better-Informed Democracy

Results 1994-2002, Center for Deliberative Democracy, 2002:

Virtual Democratic Possibilities: Prospects for Internet Democracy

Af James S. Fishkin, "Internet, Democratic and Public Goods", 06.11.2000:

Deliberative Polling as a Model for ICANN Membership

Af James S. Fishkin, Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School, 1999:

Artikler om James S. Fishkin

Governing Effectively, at Any Size

Af Chrystia Freeland, New York Times, 04.10.2012:

Deliberative Polling should be used in key policy issues

Interview med James S. Fishkin, The Asahi Shimbun, 24.01.2012:

How Can a Democracy Solve Tough Problems?

Interview med James S. Fishkin, Time Magazine, 02.09.2010:

Fishkin on Deliberative Democracy

OpenDemocracy, 09.01.2010:


Deliberative Mini-Publics: Involving Citizens in the Democratic Process

Redigeret af Kimmo Grönlund, André Bächtiger, Maija Setälä. Udgivet af ECPR Press, 2014.

Om bogen

Forfattere: Claudia Landwehr, Didier Caluwaerts, Aubin Calvert, James S. Fishkin, Marlène Gerber, Kaisa Herne, Dimokritos Kavadias, Michael Morrell, Simon John Niemeyer, Ian O'Flynn, Matt Ryan, Graham Smith, Gaurav Sood, Kim Strandberg, Mark E. Warren.

Forlaget skriver om bogen

"The first comprehensive account of the booming phenomenon of deliberative mini-publics, this book offers a systematic review of their variety, discusses their weaknesses, and recommends ways to make them a viable component of democracy. The book takes stock of the diverse practices of deliberative mini-publics and, more concretely, looks at preconditions, processes, and outcomes. It provides a critical assessment of the experience with mini-publics; in particular their lack of policy impact. Bringing together leading scholars in the field, notably James S. Fishkin and Mark E. Warren, Deliberative Mini-Publics will speak to anyone with an interest in democracy and democratic innovations."

Andre om bogen

Archon Fung: "Deliberative Mini-Publics offers a multifaceted exploration — at once normative, empirical and practical — of a growing family of institutional innovations that aim to deepen democracy by fostering citizen participation and deliberation that is fair, wise, and inclusive. This volume comes at an urgent moment when many peoples are losing faith in the central institutions that constitute representative democracy — from elections to political parties to the state itself. It offers a science and philosophy to begin to rebuild that faith by reinventing the institutions of democratic engagement."
Simone Chambers: "Mini-publics are an important and exciting innovation in our democratic repertoire. Bächtiger, Grönlund and Setälä have brought together some of the very best scholars working on this subject and produced an outstanding volume that showcases the most up-to-date thinking and the latest research ‒ both empirical and theoretical ‒ on mini-publics. A must-read book for anyone interested in deliberative democracy and citizen participation"
Albert Weale: "Those committed to a deliberative conception of democracy are notable for seeking to see how deliberative theory can be implemented through mini-publics. This strength of deliberative theoretical work can make it hard for the interested reader to follow developments, since there is a wealth of invention and innovation. This invaluable volume provides just what is needed. The contributions bring the reader up to date with developments in theory and practice, and open up new lines of theoretical and empirical enquiry, particularly in relation to the ways mini-publics fall short of requirements of political equality, the understanding of mini-publics in terms of experimental design, and the role of facilitation in deliberative events."
Brigitte Geissel: "This edition on deliberative mini-publics combines in a very innovative way conceptual and empirical research. It takes into account that the question is no longer ‘whether deliberative mini-publics work’, but examines the outcomes and impacts of different concepts, designs and processes. Consequently it is a great starting point for answering the question whether and how deliberative mini-publics can enhance the quality of democracy. It pools all important players in the field, providing a comprehensive overview of the current state of the art and is indispensable for anybody interested in developments towards more deliberative forms of democracy."

Deliberative Democracy in Practice

Redigeret af David Kahane, Daniel Weinstock, Dominique Leydet og Melissa Williams. Medforfattere; Micheline Milot, Harry Brighouse, Paul Weithman, Simone Chambers, James Bohman, Duncan Ivison, Glen Coulthard, Jorge M. Valadez, Henry S. Richardson, James S. Fishkin og John Forester. UBC Press, 2010.

Deliberative democracy has emerged as a dominant research paradigm in normative political philosophy. Deliberative democrats want politics to be more than a clash of contending interests, and they believe political decisions should emerge from reasoned dialogue among citizens. But can these ideals be realized in complex and unjust societies? Deliberative Democracy in Practice brings together leading scholars who explore debates in deliberative democratic theory through the lens of four areas of practice: education, constitutions and state boundaries, indigenous-settler relations, and citizen participation and public consultation.

When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation

Af James S. Fishkin, Center for Deliberative Democracy, 2009:

Deliberation Day

Af Bruce Ackerman og James S. Fishkin, Yale University Press, 2004.


"Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin argue that Americans can revitalize their democracy and break the cycle of cynical media manipulation that is crippling public life. They propose a new national holiday - Deliberation Day - for each presidential election year. On this day people throughout the country will meet in public spaces and engage in structured debates about issues that divide the candidates in the upcoming presidential election. Deliberation Day is a bold new proposal, but it builds on a host of smaller experiments. Over the past decade, Fishkin has initiated Deliberative Polling events in the United States and elsewhere that bring random and representative samples of voters together for discussion of key political issues. In these events, participants greatly increase their understanding of the issues and often change their minds on the best course of action. Deliberation Day is not merely a novel idea but a feasible reform. Ackerman and Fishkin consider the economic, organizational, and political questions raised by their proposal and explore its relationship to the larger ideals of liberal democracy."

Debating Deliberative Democracy

Redigeret af James S. Fishkin og Peter Laslett. Bidragsydere; Amy Gutmann, Bruce Ackerman, Cass R. Sunstein, David Miller, Dennis Thompson, Ian Shapiro, Iris Marion Young, Jeffrey K. Tulis, Philip Pettit, Robert E. Goodin, Russell Hardin. Udgivet af Blackwell Publishing, 2012.


"Debating Deliberative Democracy explores the nature and value of deliberation, the feasibility and desirability of consensus on contentious issues, the implications of institutional complexity and cultural diversity for democratic decision making, and the significance of voting and majority rule in deliberative arrangements. Investigates the nature and value of deliberation, the feasibility and desirability of consensus on contentious issues, the implications of institutional complexity and cultural diversity for democratic decision making, and the significance of voting and majority rule in deliberative arrangements. Includes focus on institutions and makes reference to empirical work. Engages a debate that cuts across political science, philosophy, the law and other disciplines."

The voice of the People: Public Opinion and Democracy

Af James S. Fishkin, Yale University Press, 25.08.1997:

The Dialogue of Justice: Toward a Self-Reflective Society

Af James S. Fishkin, Yale University Press, 1993:

Democracy and Deliberation: New Directions for Democratic Reform

Af James S. Fishkin, Yale University Press, 1993:

Tyranny and Legitimacy: A Critique of Political Theories

Af James S. Fishkin, John Hopkins University Press, 1979:


When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation By James S. Fishkin

Anmeldelse af James Fishkins bog When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation, af Foday Sulimani, Higher Education Exchange 2010, side 69-73, Kettering Foundation, 2010:

When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation

Anmeldelse af Graham Schmidt, Center for Deliberative Democracy, 2009:


Rescuing Democracy: From Ancient Athens to Brexit

Værter Ed Miliband og Geoff Lloyd, gæster David Van Reybrouck, James S. Fishkin og Sarah Allan, Reasons to be Cheerful, 03.02.2018.

Om udsendelsen

I denne udsendelse undersøger værterne, hvordan demokratiet kan forbedres ved at involvere almindelige borgere i den politiske beslutningsproces. Gæsterne fortæller om en gammel idé fra det antikke demokrati i Athen; Sortition, tilfældig udvælgelse (lodtrækning) af en gruppe deltagere (borgere) til en deliberativ mini-public forsamling eller panel.
David Van Reybrouck fortæller om eksemplet fra Irland, hvor borgerene var involveret i en grundlovs-reformproces ud fra sortition-metoden, først i et samskabende konvent Constitutional Convention med 66 borgere og 33 politikere som medlemmer, efterfølgende i en Citizns Assembly med 99 borgere som medlemmer. Reybrouck tager udgangspunkt i hans nyeste bog Imod Valg (2014), og siger at ledende politikere i Belgien og Holland taler om at bruge sortition og deliberative mini-publics, eksempelvis i form af et tokammersystem; et parlament med valgte politikere og et senat med tilfældigt udvalgte borgere.
James S. Fishkin fortæller om hans definition af deliberativt demokrati, og om hans model Deliberative Polling med en række konkrete eksempler fra hele verden. Fishkin tager afsæt i hans nyeste bog Democracy When the People Think (2018).
Sarah Allan fortæller blandt andet om borgerinddragelse indenfor psykiatrisektoren, om Citizens Assembly on Brexit, om Borgerbudgettering, og om Citizens Initiative Review modellen fra Oregon (USA), der bruges i forbindelse med folkeafstemninger.

If you could chance one thing about democracy what would it be

Vært Nivek K. Thompson, Real Democracy Now!. 4 podcast, gæsterne giver deres bud på den vigtigste ting at ændre i demokratiet, 18.04.2017 - 07.08.2017.

Season 1: Deliberative Mini-Publics

Vært Nivek K. Thompson, Real Democracy Now!, 17 podcast om deliberative mini-public modeller og metoder, 13.10.2016 - 13.02.2017.

What's Next California? The Informed Voter's Path to Political Reform

Commenwealth Club of California, 29.06.2011: http://cdd.stanford.edu/mm/2011/nextca/


James S. Fishkin]] på World News


  • Fishkin siger i et interview med Time i artiklen How can a Democracy Solve Tough Problems?[1], 2010:

"The public is very smart if you give it a chance, ... If people think their voice actually matters, they'll do the hard work, really study their briefing books, ask the experts smart questions and then make tough decisions. When they hear the experts disagreeing, they're forced to think for themselves. About 70% change their minds in the process."

  • Fishkin indleder bogen When the People Speaks[2] (2009) således:

"Democracy gives voice to “we the people”. We think it should include “all” the people. And we think it should provide a basis for “the people” thinking about the issues they decide. These two presumptions of democracy are often unstated. While most people would admit they are essential conditions for democracy, the difficulty of realizing them in combination is largely unexamined. How to do so is the subject of this book.

Our subject is how to achieve deliberative democracy: how to include everyone under conditions where they are effectively motivated to really think about the issues. This is the problem of how to fulfill two fundamental values - political equality and deliberation. We live in an age of democratic experimentation - both in our official institutions and in the many informal ways in which the public is consulted. Many methods and technologies can be used to give voice to the public will. But some give a picture of public opinion as if through a fun house mirror. They muffle or distort, providing a platform for special interests to impersonate the public will - to mobilize letters or phone calls, emails, text messages or internet tabulations of opinion that appear to be representative of the general public, but are really only from specific and well organized interest groups. In those cases, “grass roots” are synthetically transformed into what lobbyists call “astro turf.” And mass phoning to policymakers may represent about as much citizen autonomy as if they were “robocalls.” Ostensibly open democratic practices provide an opportunity for “capture” by those who are well enough organized. These are distortions in how public views are expressed. There are also distortions in how they are shaped. Elites and interest groups attempt to mold public opinion by using focus group-tested messages in order later to invoke those same opinions as a democratic mandate. From the standpoint of some democratic theories these practices are entirely appropriate. They are just part of the terms of political competition between parties and between organized interests. But from the perspective outlined here, deliberative democracy, they detour democracy from the dual aspiration to realize political equality and deliberation. And at least for some issues some of the time, there ought to be ways to represent the views of the people equally under conditions where they can think and come to a considered judgment."

  • Fishkin skriver i New York Time 15. august 2009 i artiklen Town Hall by Invitation[3]:

"These deliberative polls may, on the surface, look a lot like the current town halls — a lawmaker and constituents sharing their positions and asking each other questions. But a lot of hard work goes on behind the scenes. First, a survey identifies the range of attitudes and demographics in the district, before inviting a randomly selected, representative sample of constituents to attend. A random sample cannot be captured by people with intense interests volunteering themselves. Second, to facilitate discussion, participants are sent balanced briefing materials about the issues to be discussed ahead of time.

When they first arrive at the deliberative poll, attendees answer a confidential questionnaire assessing their positions, before being divided up for small-group discussions. This is key: in the current town hall format, shrill voices can easily silence the rest. But during a deliberative poll, trained moderators make sure that every voice is heard and that the group carefully and thoughtfully narrows in on its most pertinent and pressing policy questions.

At the end of the day, participants are polled again. Our research at the Center for Deliberative Democracy shows that participants always become better informed and that, about two-thirds of the time, they change their opinions significantly."

  • Fishkin skriver i Boston Review marts/april 2006 i artiklen The Nation in a Room[4]:

"Democracy is rule by the people. That’s what democrats celebrate and what democracy’s critics condemn. The critics, around since Plato, have an important argument. The people, they say, are neither sufficiently informed nor sufficiently reflective to rule. And because the people are not fit to rule, they need to be governed by an elite whose members—like Plato’s philosopher-kings—think harder and know better.

The American founders were troubled by this problem and proposed an answer to it. Their solution — defined by James Madison — was to make deliberation a key part of the design of the American democratic republic. The idea was “to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens”—to filter public opinion through representatives who would deliberate about public issues. ... Done well, polls can accurately reflect the state of opinion about a given topic. But whether the responses registered in polls reflect considered judgments depends not on the techniques of polling but on the state of democratic practice. Gallup, among others, showed that informal, unofficial changes in democratic practice can influence the way public opinion shapes our politics. Might there be some way, in a modern context, to combine Madison’s aspiration and Gallup’s? The project that I call “Deliberative Polling” represents a promising answer to this question."


  1. How Can a Democracy Solve Tough Problems? Interview med James S. Fishkin, Time Magazine, 02.09.2010: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2015790,00.html
  2. When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (kapitel 1), af James S. Fishkin, Center for Deliberative Democracy, 2009: http://cdd.stanford.edu/research/whenthepeoplespeak/
  3. Town Halls by Invitation, af James S. Fishkin, New York Times, 15.08.2009: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/16/opinion/16fishkin.html?_r=3
  4. The Nation in a Room, af James S. Fishkin, Boston Review, 03.2006: http://bostonreview.net/BR31.2/fishkin.php

Eksterne henvisninger

Center for Deliberative Democracy, Standford University:

Portræt af James S. Fishkin på Standford University:

Wikipedia om James S. Fishkin:


- Deliberative Polling (DP) er opfundet af James S. Fishkin, og udviklet under hans ledelse på Center for Deliberative Democracy under Stanford Universitetet. Der er afviklet mere end 100 Deliberative Polling arrangementer rundt om i verden siden 1988.

Interne henvisninger

Center for Deliberative Democracy (CDD)

Deliberative Polling (DP)

Deliberation Day


When the People Speak: Deliberative Democracy and Public Consultation (James S. Fishkin)

Eksterne Quicklinks

Om artiklen

Kvalitetsniveau 2: Artiklen er oprettet og redigering af tekst og indhold er påbegyndt. Artiklen indeholder tilstrækkelig tekst og referencer til at brugeren selv kan finde frem til yderligere information. Der er ikke foretaget endelig kvalitetskontrol af indhold eller form, og indholdet kan være mangelfuldt. Yderligere research, forbedring af tekst, og udbygning af referencer, samt kvalitetssikring af form, tekster, og referencer, er påkrævet for at artiklen kan løftes til et højere kvalitetsniveau.