Step 1 – Interactive discussion

Figure 13-1

Once the issue was activated as described previously, it would be available for participation by citizens. Parts A through E of this step (as illustrated in Figure 13-1) would be performed by each participant.

Part A. Review the overview page of the issue

The overview page would be the first web page displayed for the issue. The overview page would contain the essential information to orient the participants about the issue and to give them any special instructions. Here is some of the information that the page might include.

• the issue number

• the issue name

• the issue status

• the issue description – the problem or the challenge

• relevant background information if needed to understand the context of the problem

• the issue priority

• the submission date

• the numbers and names of associated issues that this issue would replace or affect – for example, a previous issue that would be updated or fixed by this issue

Part B. Voice personal perspective

If the person were signed in, the second page would be the statements and assessments screen. This page would display a question asking for the participant's personal perspective on the issue. An example is shown in Figure 13-2. This is the same screen as shown in Figure 12-1 but with a different question.

Figure 13-2

If the person were not a citizen, the page would appear as in Figure 13-3. They could view the question and click on the View Results button to see the current results for the question. However, the instructions, the assessment buttons, and the text box to enter their own statement would not display.

Figure 13-3

The first question in the process

The first question in the democratic solution process as shown in Figures 13-2 and 13-3 would default to something like this unless changed by the council. 

What statement best expresses your perspective on this issue?

What do you support and what do you object to regarding this issue?

What do you like about it and what are you afraid of?

 After assessing at least 10 statements, the participant could enter their own unique statements if desired.

The purpose of this first question

There are five fundamental reasons for beginning our process with this first question regarding the citizen's personal perspective.

1. It gives every participant a voice about the issue.

2. It allows the solution process to start where the person is. Often, people find it hard to move beyond their personal perspective (and bias) until they have voiced it and been heard. Once they've had their say, the emotional energy and the attention fixed on their opinion is released. They become more emotionally available to listen to the perspectives and needs of others and to new information to help them move toward a solution.

3. It helps them to bring their beliefs into their awareness. Statements show them their beliefs, doubts, and fears. The issue ceases to be a nebulous, emotional topic based on media headlines and perhaps a generalized anger at "those people" and becomes a set of specific statements with which they personally agree or disagree.

4. It emotionally commits them to participating further.

5. It exposes them to the viewpoints of others. At the same time as they express their thoughts and feelings, they read the thoughts and feelings of others. They realize that their opinion is nuanced, not black or white. In the Polis surveys, the statements of others have drawn people in. Many have read and assessed 50 to 100 or more statements because they were curious at what others believed. The same curiosity stimulates them to view the question results to see the consensus statements and where they fall compared to everyone else. At this point, some even take opposing statements and try to form new statements that more people might agree with. Even this first question begins to solve the problem and to bring people to a consensus. However, more is needed.

Viewing the results

The View Results button in Figures 13-2 and 13-3 would display the following information for the question.

1. The number of people who had participated in the question, the number of unique statements, the number of assessments made, and the assessments per participant on average.

2. A consensus list of all statements where 60% or more of the participants assessed the statements the same way as was shown in Figure 12-2.

3. A dot plot showing the spread of consensus vs. divisive statements as was shown in Figure 12-4.

4. A list of the standard demographics statistics from citizens participating and from any added demographic statements for this issue to illustrate the demographic breakdown of the groups formed from the assessments.

5. A list of all statements, formatted as was shown in Figure 12-2.

Part C. Voice personal needs and impact of the issue

After the participant is finished with the first question and clicks on the Next button, a different question would be displayed asking the participant to describe a personal need from the resolution of the issue or a statement of one way the issue affects them. Any customer needs or benefits included when the issue was submitted would be seeded as statements for this question by the Federal Council. Participants would assess 10 or more statements of others in response to this question and then could enter their own unique statements if desired.

The purpose of this question

This question performs three important functions. The first is to determine the required outcomes of the solution. The second is to put the person into problem solving mode. The third is to foster empathy for the needs of others.

To fix an issue, the associated government process must be changed or a new process created. We call the people who receive the output of the process the customers of the process. The needs of the customers determine the outputs or outcome that the process must produce. The outputs are what the customers experience. Often several types of customers are discovered through grouping statements of shared needs. Therefore, it is critical to look at what customers need before developing a solution to an issue.

Asking the participant about their needs begins a subtle but significant course change in the participant's thinking. It starts moving the participant's thought process from their beliefs and from blame toward thinking about solutions. Once specific needs are identified, our minds automatically go into problem solving mode of how to meet those needs.

As they review the needs of others and the effects that the issue has on everyone, participants discover that many people can be affected similarly regardless of their political beliefs and ideologies. They also discover impacts on others of which they weren't aware. They begin to develop sympathy and empathy for those affected negatively. Their understanding of the perspectives of others deepens. As they view the results of this question, they see the consensus statements where most agree.

For many, this significant point marks the end of a mental state of division, criticism, and arguing based on a generic indoctrinated ideology and the beginning of hope and understanding. They realize that we are all in this together and that we might all actually solve it together, meeting at least some of the needs of most people. It is the beginning of hope.

Part D. Assess demographic statements

When participants have finished entering needs and impacts and they clicked on Next, a new question would be displayed. It would ask the participants to help the Federal Council understand who is participating by assessing all of the demographic statements. The demographic statements would be displayed one at a time in random order. Participants would be required to assess all of the demographic statements (agree, disagree, or pass). They would not enter their own statements in this part.

Part E. Review information about the issue

This part of Step 1 is slightly different from the previous parts. The purpose is to provide validated information to help participants become informed about the issue. Each participant must read or listen to a minimum of two documents. (Auditory versions would also be provided.) Participants could also review additional documents listed if desired. Documents would have a maximum page length such as 3 or 5 pages. It would not be necessary to review the documents at the same time. They could be reviewed in multiple sessions or downloaded and reviewed offline.

After reviewing each document, the statements and assessments screen in Figure 13-2 would be displayed. The question on the screen would ask the participants for their judgement of the information in that document. It would ask them to assess statements and enter their own statements about the key information in the document and its importance. The Federal Council could create statements to assess about the key points of a document in advance if they wished.

Citizens and councils could request information

If participants felt that information was missing to answer their questions, they could submit a request in this step describing their question or the information they felt was needed to understand the issue.

Documents could be created or requisitioned by the Federal Council as well as submitted by citizens to help participants understand the issue. For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) could provide independent analysis of budgetary and economic issues as they do now. Federal Councils could request a study by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) regarding government operations if needed for the issue.

Original information only

All documents would be reviewed by the Federal Council before being added to the document list for the issue. Only original information containing studies, facts, or data would be accepted. Documents could present logical conclusions from the information presented, but could not be opinion pieces, push personal agendas, or be presented in a manner to inflame emotions in the reader. Alternative data sets and interpretations would be allowed and would be desirable.

If a citizen felt that important information was missing, they could submit their own document assuming they had appropriate information available.

Information representing the perspective of the submitter would be removed as they can communicate their voice in Part B–Voice personal perspective. Duplicated information, opinions, and known false information would not be accepted, Rants, criticisms, or propaganda would be removed. Information proven false could cause the person submitting the information to be banned from submitting information for a time. However, conflicting studies, reports, or data should be included in the document list.

The purpose of reviewing documents

The purpose of this part is to inform participants with the best information available to help them to develop a consensus as to which information was the most relevant and valid just as juries are trusted to weigh conflicting information to decide on a verdict. It would ensure that the most accurate information possible representing each analysis conclusion would be available on the Citizen Governance Website. Citizens need a source of information about issues that they can trust.

The purpose of reviewing documents would not be to debate philosophies, ideologies, or values or to disparage any particular group or belief system. Personal perspectives would not be rehashed here. Therefore, only original research or information derived from independent knowledge or analysis would be published for an issue. The purpose would be to understand the unbiased facts and information where possible.

That doesn't mean that all of the information for an issue would agree or be congruent. At times, information and studies conflict with others. The same data may be interpreted differently. Critical information may be missing. Information representing multiple conclusions can be useful to understand an issue.

My hope is that this part would reduce the impact of propaganda published by the media and special interests with the intent of swaying citizens towards a particular solution. Citizens could trust the information on Citizen Governance Websites over opinion pieces and propaganda published and advertised in the media. Unbiased, accurate information is seldom found in political media articles because they represent the bias of their writers and the media organization's strategy. Their purpose is to garner attention and to persuade the reader to a specific belief or action. Therefore, they are often sensationalistic and appeal to the bias and emotions of their reader base. They ignore some information, only presenting information that supports their conclusion. For this reason, some countries create panels who publish official information including different perspectives to inform citizens regarding citizens' initiatives.