En yaygın kullanılan müzakereci prosedürlerden biri James Fishkin tarafından geliştirilmiş olan müzakereci kamuoyu yoklamasıdır. “Müzakereci Kamuoyu Yoklaması: Deneyselden Toplumsal İçgörüye” başlıklı makalelerinde Fishkin ve Cynthia Farrar bu prosedürün hem Amerika Birleşik Devletleri’nde hem de dünyada farklı toplumlar bünyesinde bir düşünce deneyinden demokratik uygulamaya dönüşümünde gözlenen teorik ve pratik hususlar üzerinde durmaktadır. Araştırmacılar müzakereci kamuoyu yoklamasını “vatandaşların bilgiye ve diğer yurttaşların maruz kalınan görüşlerine dayanarak yapacakları değerlendirmeler sonucu vardıkları yargılar öncesinde ve sonrasında vatandaşlar üzerinde yapılan bir kamuoyu yoklaması” olarak tanımlamaktadır (Fishkin ve Farrar, 2005: 68). Araştırmacılara göre müzakereci kamuoyu yoklaması, iki anahtar değer olan siyasi eşitlik ile müzakereyi bir araya getiren özel bir kamusal istişaredir. Buradaki siyasi eşitlik kavramı herkesin tercihlerinin eşit derecede dikkate alınmasıyken müzakere kavramı ise katılımcıların rekabet halindeki argümanları kendi yargılarına göre değerlendirdiği bir tartışma sürecidir. Araştırmacıların görüşlerine göre nitelikli bir müzakere için karşılanması gereken dört standart vardır: (a) Bütünlük: bir konuda bir tarafın sunduğu argümanların diğer tarafın argümanları ile cevaplanabildiği ölçü; (b) Bilgi: kişilerin kullandığı bilgilerin makul ve doğru olduğu ölçü; (c) Farkındalık: müzakereye dahil tarafların konuyu kendi gerçekliği dahilinde karara bağlamak arzusu içinde olduğu ölçü; ve (d) Çeşitlilik: müzakere eden kişilerin ilgili nüfus içindeki tüm bakış açılarını temsil edecek çeşitlilikte olduğu ölçü.
One of the 1mostimportant deliberative procedures2 is deliberative polling, which was3designed by James Fishkin. In the article Deliberative Polling : FfromExperiment to Community Resource, James Fishkin, and Cynthia Farrar presents present the theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of this procedure from athought experiment to a democratic practice in different numerous 4communitiesin the United States and around the world. They define the deliberative polling 5as “a poll of citizens before and after they had the chance to arrive atconsidered judgments based on information and exposure tothe views of their fellow citizens” (Fishkin and Farrar, 2005: 68). Fishkin and Farr6arargue that thedeliberative polling7 is a distinctive form of publicconsultation that combines two key values, political equality and deliberation,political equality means equal consideration of everyone’spreferences, and deliberation means a process of discussion in which peopleweigh competing arguments on their merits. In their opinions, for a qualitydeliberation there are four standards that should be met -: (a) Completeness:the extent towhich arguments offered on one side of an issue are answered byarguments from another side, which are then answered in turn; (b) Information:the extentto8 which information that people employ is reasonable andaccurate; (c) Consciousness: the extent to which people participate with theaim of deciding the issue on its merits; and (d) Diversity: the extent to whichthose who deliberate represent the diversity of viewpoints in the relevantpopulation.
One of the 1mostimportant widely used deliberative procedures2 is deliberative polling, which was3designed by James Fishkin. In theirarticle Deliberative Polling : Ffrom Experiment toCommunity Resource, James4 Fishkin,and Cynthia Farrar presents present thetheoretical and practical issues involved5in the transformationdeveloping ofthis procedure from a thought experiment to a democratic practice that has been used in different numerous 6communities in the United States and around the world. They define the deliberative polling 7as“a poll of citizens before and after they had the chance to arrive atconsidered judgments based on information and exposure to the views of theirfellow citizens” (Fishkin and Farrar, 2005: 68). Fishkinand Farr8ar They argue that thetheir 9deliberative polling10method is a distinctive form of public consultation that combines two key values,: political equality and deliberation,. By political equality, they means equal consideration of everyone’spreferences, and by deliberation, they refer to meansa process of discussion in which people participants11 weigh competing arguments on theirmerits. In their opinionsview, for a high-qualitydeliberation there are four standardscriteria12 that should be met -: (a) Ccompletenessor:the extent to13which arguments offered on one side of an issue are answered byarguments from another side, which are then answered in turn; (b) iInformation i.e.: the extent to which theinformation that people employ is reasonable and accurate; (c) cConsciousnessor:the extent towhich those involved desire to decide 14people participate with the aim of deciding theissue on its merits; and (d) dDiversity: the extent to which those whodeliberate represent the diversity full range of viewpoints in the relevantpopulation.
One of the most widely used deliberative procedures is deliberative polling, which was designed by James Fishkin. In their article Deliberative Polling: From Experiment to Community Resource, Fishkin and Cynthia Farrar present the theoretical and practical issues involved in developing this procedure from a thought experiment to a democratic practice that has been used in numerous communities in the United States and around the world. They define deliberative polling as “a poll of citizens before and after they had the chance to arrive at considered judgments based on information and exposure to the views of their fellow citizens” (Fishkin and Farrar, 2005: 68). They argue that their method is a distinctive form of public consultation that combines two key values: political equality and deliberation. By political equality, they mean equal consideration of everyone’s preferences, and by deliberation, they refer to a process of discussion in which participants weigh competing arguments on their merits. In their view, for a high-quality deliberation there are four criteria that should be met: (a) completeness or the extent to which arguments offered on one side of an issue are answered by arguments from another side, which are then answered in turn; (b) information i.e. the extent to which the information that people employ is reasonable and accurate; (c) consciousness or the extent to which those involved desire to decide the issue on its merits; and (d) diversity: the extent to which those who deliberate represent the full range of viewpoints in the relevant population.
