Introduction to the Experiment
The volunteers running the experiment were not completely hands-off. Submitted ideas were screened according to a moderation policy, and redundant ideas were not posted. Ford says that 51% of ideas were published, and 31% were deemed redundant. About 6% of ideas were not posted because they were either completely off-topic or contained a personal attack.
Limitations of the Approach
But some researchers who study the technologies that can make democracy more effective question whether soliciting input in this manner is a reliable way to understand what a community wants. One problem is self-selection—for example, certain kinds of people tend to show up to in-person forums like town halls. Research shows that seniors, homeowners, and people with high levels of education are the most likely to attend, Fung says. It’s possible that similar dynamics are at play among the residents of Bowling Green who decided to participate in the project.
Self-Selection Bias
“Self-selection is not an adequate way to represent the opinions of a public,” says James Fishkin, a political scientist at Stanford who’s known for developing a process he calls deliberative polling, in which a representative sample of a population’s residents are brought together for a weekend, paid about $300 each for their participation, and asked to deliberate in small groups. Other methods, used in some European governments, use jury-style groups of residents to make public policy decisions.
The Road to Policy Implementation
What’s clear to everyone who studies the effectiveness of these tools is that they promise to move a city in a more democratic direction, but we won’t know if Bowling Green’s experiment worked until residents see what the city does with the ideas that they raised. “You can’t make policy based on a tweet,” says Beth Simone Noveck, who directs a lab that studies democracy and technology at Northeastern University. As she points out, residents were voting on 140-character ideas, and those now need to be formed into real policies.
Next Steps
“What comes next,” she says, “is the conversation between the city and residents to develop a short proposal into something that can actually be implemented.” For residents to trust that their voice actually matters, the city must be clear on why it’s implementing some ideas and not others. For now, the organizers have made the results public, and they will make recommendations to the Warren County leadership later this year.
Conclusion
The experiment in Bowling Green is an interesting case study in using technology to increase civic engagement and participation in local government. While there are limitations to the approach, it has the potential to move the city in a more democratic direction. The key to success will be in the implementation of the ideas and the transparency of the decision-making process.
FAQs
Q: What was the moderation policy for submitted ideas?
A: The moderation policy screened out redundant ideas and those that were off-topic or contained personal attacks.
Q: What percentage of ideas were published?
A: 51% of ideas were published.
Q: What is self-selection bias?
A: Self-selection bias refers to the tendency of certain groups of people to participate in civic engagement activities, such as town halls or online forums.
Q: What is deliberative polling?
A: Deliberative polling is a process in which a representative sample of residents are brought together to discuss and deliberate on policy issues.
Q: What is the next step in the process?
A: The next step is for the city to develop the short proposals into implementable policies and to clearly communicate the decision-making process to residents.
