The Insiders
-
Jan
26
Issue of the Day: Citizen's Assembly
Posted by: Neal Yonson | January 26, 2007 | 14 Comments
VP Academic candidate Bruce Krayenhoff’s campaign has some new ideas (“green power” cards, and borrowing textbooks rather than buying them), one in particular stands out. His “Citizen’s Assembly.” It’s generally a very good and creative idea. But I have an important criticism.
In sum, the body operates as follows:
- Randomly select 12-36 students from across campus, and pay them to sit on the Assembly.
- Serve as a consultative body for UBC and the AMS, as well as select a few issues each year to be decided by referendum.
The idea is that it will be more representative of the campus as a whole, which is a problem with the current AMS. Moreover, one of the premises of the argument is that this will give voice to the 87% of people who don’t vote. There’s a significant problem with this argument – this body only gives voice to an additional 12-36 people! This doesn’t reach out to the disenfranchised, it reaches out to a couple dozen of them. In fact, this vests decision-making authority in a body that’s more elite than Council. Additionally, the model suggests that the AMS is low-information, and this hurts engagement. That’s true. But adding another bureaucratic body won’t lower the cost of information; it can only raise it. He also suggests that this will remove self-selection. That’s not true; it is still limited to people who choose to accept the role, unless the AMS plans to force students to participate.
My basic criticism of the model deals with the appointment: random, while an interesting application of Grecian democracy, is inherently flawed, because there’s no guarantee of engaging students in the manner in which they’re connected to campus, and each other. It’s just some random people in a room. So I (owing a debt to Spencer Keys) support a model, similar to Bruce’s, but, in lieu of a random appointment process, choosing a body from among various student groups. Student clubs, residences, Greeks, teams, resource groups… these are how students engage with their University and student society.
So why this model? You’re more likely to get a variety of perspectives while ensuring that they’re students engaged with campus life. Moreover, it validates these groups as important elements in student life. The current model (aka Council) only engages students involved with undergrad societies. Bruce’s model engages only those students who choose to accept their appointments, if they win the lottery. While my suggestion reaches out to students in ways in which they are already engaged. Plus, they have some element of a representative mandate, there exists some context for their involvement beyond the mere hand of Fate.
I should note that, principally, I support Bruce’s idea, or a similar body. Particularly, I like the idea of students bringing ideas before it, and getting a “hearing” on an issue or proposal. But that’s just me. What are peoples’ thoughts on a deliberative student assembly?
Comments
14 Comments so far
I didn’t like the idea when Bruce first brought it up, and though I commend the sentiment, I still think it’s a weak idea. His focus on the whole “apathy” problem incenses me, since I see it as a more fundamental problem than one that can be good-willed or even educated out of existence.
His lack of elaboration left me imagining a group of sullen, (most likely) uninformed 1st year students plucked off the street, placed in a room, and asked to extensively research and consult. I’m not sure what that scenario would accomplish exccept for adding another innefectual and money wasting swathing of beurocaracy to the already well-wrapped cores of power at AMS and UBC.
Even with well-meaning and enthusiastic participants, an assembly isn’t an efficient way to gather information from students outside the AMS enclave. Polls would do as much in helping to decide on referendum issues, which are fairly self-evident topically. Across-the-board consultation is best and most accurately accomplished by polls or short phone questionaires.
To garner voices from outside council, I would favour a space on council agendas for any student that has a serious idea to be able to put forward motions or maybe participate in AMS comitees. That way diverse voices aren’t just cobbled together for a narrow and toothless mandate of ‘consultation’ and obvious referendum decisions, but can focus their efforts on something they actually care about. Self-selection in govenment is inherent and innevitable; trying to dodge that fact by selecting citizen’s assembly members from slightly larger pools of self-selected people (how would this choice occur out of the hundreds of student groups?) is asking for cronyism and conflict. Referenda are the best option for direct democracy – for the rest, lets leave the door open to normal students with ideas.
I didn’t like the idea when Bruce first brought it up, and though I commend the sentiment, I still think it’s a weak idea. His focus on the whole “apathy” problem incenses me, since I see it as a more fundamental problem than one that can be good-willed or even educated out of existence.
His lack of elaboration left me imagining a group of sullen, (most likely) uninformed 1st year students plucked off the street, placed in a room, and asked to extensively research and consult. I’m not sure what that scenario would accomplish exccept for adding another innefectual and money wasting swathing of beurocaracy to the already well-wrapped cores of power at AMS and UBC.
Even with well-meaning and enthusiastic participants, an assembly isn’t an efficient way to gather information from students outside the AMS enclave. Polls would do as much in helping to decide on referendum issues, which are fairly self-evident topically. Across-the-board consultation is best and most accurately accomplished by polls or short phone questionaires.
To garner voices from outside council, I would favour a space on council agendas for any student that has a serious idea to be able to put forward motions or maybe participate in AMS comitees. That way diverse voices aren’t just cobbled together for a narrow and toothless mandate of ‘consultation’ and obvious referendum decisions, but can focus their efforts on something they actually care about. Self-selection in govenment is inherent and innevitable; trying to dodge that fact by selecting citizen’s assembly members from slightly larger pools of self-selected people (how would this choice occur out of the hundreds of student groups?) is asking for cronyism and conflict. Referenda are the best option for direct democracy – for the rest, lets leave the door open to normal students with ideas.
I think you have to put some trust in the average person plucked off the street if you want to have any hope for the future of the planet. I am very enamored with Bruce’s idea. My only reservation is that it might not be best suited to an institution like UBC, right now. It is not so much oversight that the council needs – they haven’t done anything I’d call incompetent for a while now – but a big push towards attempting to make some daring changes. I’m not sure if something like a CA would provide that impetus.
But I think it would be a great trial project. Fund it for ~3000-4000 and see what happens.
Better than carabiners!
I think you have to put some trust in the average person plucked off the street if you want to have any hope for the future of the planet. I am very enamored with Bruce’s idea. My only reservation is that it might not be best suited to an institution like UBC, right now. It is not so much oversight that the council needs – they haven’t done anything I’d call incompetent for a while now – but a big push towards attempting to make some daring changes. I’m not sure if something like a CA would provide that impetus.
But I think it would be a great trial project. Fund it for ~3000-4000 and see what happens.
Better than carabiners!
Tim, just a reminder that the Student Assembly (at your request) had room for about 15 students that showed up to any given meeting on a first come first serve basis.
So Mike, that may be a bit of a happy medium in that it wouldn’t purely be people from different interest groups.
Tim, just a reminder that the Student Assembly (at your request) had room for about 15 students that showed up to any given meeting on a first come first serve basis.
So Mike, that may be a bit of a happy medium in that it wouldn’t purely be people from different interest groups.
Spencer,
I tried yesterday for a few minutes to find the old model. Wasn’t exactly successful. Mostly cuz I’m lazy.
Spencer,
I tried yesterday for a few minutes to find the old model. Wasn’t exactly successful. Mostly cuz I’m lazy.
http://monkeybutlers.livejournal.com/112999.html
It’s a locked post but there ya go.
http://monkeybutlers.livejournal.com/112999.html
It’s a locked post but there ya go.
This post is a responce to Tim’s original post.
First I want to reiterate the theory. Using random selection you can get a sample that is representative in all respects within some statistical error. By exposing them to the relevant information and all major viewpoints you can insure that they are informed as well, so that their views are representative of what the entire electorate would think if it were informed. If you can do what an informed electorate would want, this is, in my view, the gold standard in democracy. Since the members of this “citizens’ assembly” are not elected and are therefore not accountable, I don’t think it is appropriate that it should make any final decisions. However the citizens’ assembly (Henceforth CA) could work with voters and the AMS council to improve AMS governance.
I would now like to address several of Tim’s points:
1. “this body only gives voice to an additional 12-36 people”
True, but like an opinion pole this group is statistically representative of the entire student body, and I believe what is of primary importance is what the AMS does – not how many people who may have similar opinions are allowed to voice them. There is a real issue here however. Because the AMS doesn’t have the money necessary to run a CA as large as the BC Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, the statistical error will be 2 to 4 times larger. However, I believe a smaller CA will still be very valuable.
2. “this vests decision-making authority in a body that’s more elite than Council. “
I disagree. The BC Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was anything but elite. It is not how many people constitute a representative body that makes it elite, but whether these people come primarily from small priviledged groups, such as academics, the wealthy, and maybe activists. I do not believe the CA would be in any way elite, though I don’t believe elite representative bodies are undesirable if they can be made to serve the people/students.
3. “He also suggests that this will remove self-selection. That’s not true; it is still limited to people who choose to accept the role, unless the AMS plans to force students to participate.”
It is true that there will always be self-selection, however there are several ways to mitigate this problem:
a) Pay participants a decent honorarium, such as $15 to $20 per hour.
b) Stratify the random sample. Opinion polls get only a 20 to 40% response rate, however if young people are less likely to answer the poller’s questions, they simply sample more young people until they are demographically accurately represented within their sample. In the AMS I think it would be appropriate to stratify the sample by year, gender, and possibly faculty.
c) Actively encourage selected students to participate. This strategy is based on experience from deliberative polls. In deliberative polls they conduct a poll over the phone then pay people $150 per day for one or two days to learn about the issue in question. Finally they poll them again at the end of the weekend and see how their opinions have changed. They tell their randomly selected individuals they will enjoy the experience (a statement which their results support), and call these individuals several times if necessary. As a result, they usually have an over 70% participation rate.
d) Invite selected individuals to attend a one hour paid and obligation free evening to learn what participation in the CA would entail.
While self-selection will still play a role, I’m sure it will play less of a role than in the AMS elections, and far less than in standard methods of public consultation.
4. “I support a model, similar to Bruce’s, but, in lieu of a random appointment process, choosing a body from among various student groups.”
This seems somewhat akin to stratifying the random sample, but would representatives be chosen at random from these groups or elected? Would students who are very involved in campus life have a greater chance of being selected than those who are too busy or who chose not to get involved?
In democracy the equality of votes is paramount, and if you create a representative body by random selection this translates into everyone having an equal chance of being selected. Students who aren’t involved in campus life are still fee-paying members of the AMS, and deserve to be represented. I fear that Tim’s model is moving away from this ideal, and while I think it may have value in its own right (for instance in providing feedback to the AMS), it clearly will not provide those who don’t vote or who don’t pay much attention with accurate representation.
5. Tim said that the citizens’ assembly would “Serve as a consultative body for UBC and the AMS, as well as select a few issues each year to be decided by referendum”
This description is missing one element. The exact nature of the citizens’ assembly would ultimately be decided by council, but here is my vision for one additional role it would serve:
1) Endorse candidates and ballot initiatives at election time. For example, let us assume the citizens’ assembly (CA) has 25 members and that Pizza, Taco, and Olive are running for President. When you went online to vote you could read that 13 CA members endorse Pizza, 11 endorse Taco and 1 endorses Olive. You might then read the blurbs that each of these groups of CA members wrote justifying their endorsements, and then cast your vote based on how they voted and on their justification. On the other hand, if the endorsements were 22 for Pizza, 2 for Taco and 1 for Olive, you might just trust the group of 22. Similarly, the CA could help people make the ‘right’ decision when voting on a ballot initiative.
I have found the endorsements of media such as Election Insider quite useful, however there are many different media sources and you’re never quite sure what their biases are and how good their judgement is (especially if you aren’t an ‘election insider’ yourself). I would put more trust in the informed opinions of an average group of students like myself, and having this one reliable source for information would simplify voting substantially.
Finally I would like to emphasize that this is not just about UBC. This would also be pioneering a democratic reform that has the potential to solve many of the problems in the world today. Imagine if we had a similar system at the federal, provincial or municipal levels! Despite the apathy, there is little big money in AMS politics, which is probably why it seems to work alright.
Links – for those who want background information about this kind of initiative:
The results of some deliberative polls® – see how people’s opinions change when they learn more about issues!
http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/docs/summary/
The Deliberative Democracy Consortium – My proposal falls within the field of deliberative democracy.
http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/
Also, this week I will try to write up details of how the citizens’ assembly might work and be used on my website:
electbruce.googlepages.com
This post is a responce to Tim’s original post.
First I want to reiterate the theory. Using random selection you can get a sample that is representative in all respects within some statistical error. By exposing them to the relevant information and all major viewpoints you can insure that they are informed as well, so that their views are representative of what the entire electorate would think if it were informed. If you can do what an informed electorate would want, this is, in my view, the gold standard in democracy. Since the members of this “citizens’ assembly” are not elected and are therefore not accountable, I don’t think it is appropriate that it should make any final decisions. However the citizens’ assembly (Henceforth CA) could work with voters and the AMS council to improve AMS governance.
I would now like to address several of Tim’s points:
1. “this body only gives voice to an additional 12-36 people”
True, but like an opinion pole this group is statistically representative of the entire student body, and I believe what is of primary importance is what the AMS does – not how many people who may have similar opinions are allowed to voice them. There is a real issue here however. Because the AMS doesn’t have the money necessary to run a CA as large as the BC Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform, the statistical error will be 2 to 4 times larger. However, I believe a smaller CA will still be very valuable.
2. “this vests decision-making authority in a body that’s more elite than Council. “
I disagree. The BC Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform was anything but elite. It is not how many people constitute a representative body that makes it elite, but whether these people come primarily from small priviledged groups, such as academics, the wealthy, and maybe activists. I do not believe the CA would be in any way elite, though I don’t believe elite representative bodies are undesirable if they can be made to serve the people/students.
3. “He also suggests that this will remove self-selection. That’s not true; it is still limited to people who choose to accept the role, unless the AMS plans to force students to participate.”
It is true that there will always be self-selection, however there are several ways to mitigate this problem:
a) Pay participants a decent honorarium, such as $15 to $20 per hour.
b) Stratify the random sample. Opinion polls get only a 20 to 40% response rate, however if young people are less likely to answer the poller’s questions, they simply sample more young people until they are demographically accurately represented within their sample. In the AMS I think it would be appropriate to stratify the sample by year, gender, and possibly faculty.
c) Actively encourage selected students to participate. This strategy is based on experience from deliberative polls. In deliberative polls they conduct a poll over the phone then pay people $150 per day for one or two days to learn about the issue in question. Finally they poll them again at the end of the weekend and see how their opinions have changed. They tell their randomly selected individuals they will enjoy the experience (a statement which their results support), and call these individuals several times if necessary. As a result, they usually have an over 70% participation rate.
d) Invite selected individuals to attend a one hour paid and obligation free evening to learn what participation in the CA would entail.
While self-selection will still play a role, I’m sure it will play less of a role than in the AMS elections, and far less than in standard methods of public consultation.
4. “I support a model, similar to Bruce’s, but, in lieu of a random appointment process, choosing a body from among various student groups.”
This seems somewhat akin to stratifying the random sample, but would representatives be chosen at random from these groups or elected? Would students who are very involved in campus life have a greater chance of being selected than those who are too busy or who chose not to get involved?
In democracy the equality of votes is paramount, and if you create a representative body by random selection this translates into everyone having an equal chance of being selected. Students who aren’t involved in campus life are still fee-paying members of the AMS, and deserve to be represented. I fear that Tim’s model is moving away from this ideal, and while I think it may have value in its own right (for instance in providing feedback to the AMS), it clearly will not provide those who don’t vote or who don’t pay much attention with accurate representation.
5. Tim said that the citizens’ assembly would “Serve as a consultative body for UBC and the AMS, as well as select a few issues each year to be decided by referendum”
This description is missing one element. The exact nature of the citizens’ assembly would ultimately be decided by council, but here is my vision for one additional role it would serve:
1) Endorse candidates and ballot initiatives at election time. For example, let us assume the citizens’ assembly (CA) has 25 members and that Pizza, Taco, and Olive are running for President. When you went online to vote you could read that 13 CA members endorse Pizza, 11 endorse Taco and 1 endorses Olive. You might then read the blurbs that each of these groups of CA members wrote justifying their endorsements, and then cast your vote based on how they voted and on their justification. On the other hand, if the endorsements were 22 for Pizza, 2 for Taco and 1 for Olive, you might just trust the group of 22. Similarly, the CA could help people make the ‘right’ decision when voting on a ballot initiative.
I have found the endorsements of media such as Election Insider quite useful, however there are many different media sources and you’re never quite sure what their biases are and how good their judgement is (especially if you aren’t an ‘election insider’ yourself). I would put more trust in the informed opinions of an average group of students like myself, and having this one reliable source for information would simplify voting substantially.
Finally I would like to emphasize that this is not just about UBC. This would also be pioneering a democratic reform that has the potential to solve many of the problems in the world today. Imagine if we had a similar system at the federal, provincial or municipal levels! Despite the apathy, there is little big money in AMS politics, which is probably why it seems to work alright.
Links – for those who want background information about this kind of initiative:
The results of some deliberative polls® – see how people’s opinions change when they learn more about issues!
http://cdd.stanford.edu/polls/docs/summary/
The Deliberative Democracy Consortium – My proposal falls within the field of deliberative democracy.
http://www.deliberative-democracy.net/
Also, this week I will try to write up details of how the citizens’ assembly might work and be used on my website:
electbruce.googlepages.com
For the record, Green Power certificates are not a new idea. A number of buildings in UBC are already “powered” by them. When BC Hydro moved the price down, the sustainability office started looking into purchasing a bunch of ’em and effectively running the entire academic core on green power. They proposed a student referendum to fund it with an annual fee – a model taken at a substantial number of universities in the US and elsewhere (some noted campuses run entirely on green power), positing that a successful referendum would be an explicit endorsement of green principles by UBC students that could be leveraged to grow awareness of other CSO programs. That said, the downside would have been yet more crowding of the fee referendum ticket if one assumed others were done. Interesting idea with precedent though, and I hope it hasn’t died/won’t.
For the record, Green Power certificates are not a new idea. A number of buildings in UBC are already “powered” by them. When BC Hydro moved the price down, the sustainability office started looking into purchasing a bunch of ’em and effectively running the entire academic core on green power. They proposed a student referendum to fund it with an annual fee – a model taken at a substantial number of universities in the US and elsewhere (some noted campuses run entirely on green power), positing that a successful referendum would be an explicit endorsement of green principles by UBC students that could be leveraged to grow awareness of other CSO programs. That said, the downside would have been yet more crowding of the fee referendum ticket if one assumed others were done. Interesting idea with precedent though, and I hope it hasn’t died/won’t.