Frankly Fukuyama: Jim Fishkin on Deliberation and Democracy
Host: Francis Fukuyama
Guest: Jim Fishkin (Director, Deliberative Democracy Lab, Stanford University)
Date: November 24, 2025
Episode Overview
This episode centers on the concept and practical application of deliberation in democratic societies, featuring leading expert Jim Fishkin. Fishkin discusses the theory and practice of "deliberative polling," a method he pioneered to reveal what the public would think if people had the chance to reflect and weigh evidence collectively. The conversation explores why deliberation is crucial, challenges of scaling it in large democracies, its impact on polarization, and real-world applications—including energy policy in Texas and national dialogues in Japan and Chile.
Main Discussion Points & Insights
1. The Importance of Deliberation in Democracy
- Definition & Rationale: Fishkin defines deliberation as "weighing the pros and cons, the competing arguments, the trade offs" [00:59]. He asserts that authentic democracy must connect to the true will of the people—something endangered by propaganda, filter bubbles, and misinformation (including that spread by AI and bots).
- Quote:
“Democracy should make some connection to the so-called will of the people. But what is the will of the people these days? ... They may be subject to massive amounts of misinformation.” – Jim Fishkin [01:29]
2. Deliberative Polling: The Method
- Process Summary: Fishkin’s deliberative polling involves recruiting a stratified random sample of citizens, surveying them, having them deliberate in moderated small groups (often with competing experts), then surveying again.
- Impact: Deliberative polling shows substantial opinion shifts when people become more informed, leading to thoughtful, coherent judgments rather than mere party loyalty [03:09–04:48].
- Quote:
“It cools down the affect of polarization. It creates greater mutual respect among the people who disagree amongst each other the most strongly.” – Jim Fishkin [03:49]
3. Scaling Deliberation in Large Democracies
- Challenge: Modern democracies face a scale problem—deliberative models like the Athenian assembly or New England town halls don’t scale to millions.
- Fishkin’s Approach: Use "mini-publics" (500–1000+ randomly selected citizens), moderated in small groups, with control groups for rigorous evaluation. Increasingly, AI-assisted moderators are used for scalability without compromising the quality of deliberation [05:33–07:42].
4. Real-world Applications and Effects
Texas Energy Deliberation
- Fishkin recounts projects with the Texas Public Utility Commission where deliberative polling led the public to support renewable energy investments—results that directly shaped state policy [12:10–15:58].
- Memorable Result:
“The percentage ... willing to pay more on their monthly bill to subsidize wind power ... went from 50% to 85% ... the commission was astonished by that.” – Jim Fishkin [14:38]
Japan’s Nuclear Power Debate
- After unproductive and confrontational town halls post-Fukushima, the Japanese government adopted a national deliberative poll, informing actual policy decisions [16:23–17:49].
5. Deliberative Polling vs. Traditional Participation Mechanisms
- Fukuyama critiques existing US participation forums for being dominated by organized, professional interest groups, not representative citizens. Fishkin’s method deliberately samples ordinary citizens and insulates them from such domination [10:27–12:10].
- Quote:
“If they had open meetings, it would just be dominated by lobbyists and who could figure out, predict exactly how that would come out and they might be bound by these results. So they gulped a little bit and they said, well, we’re going to do this process. And it worked well every time, all eight times.” – Jim Fishkin [14:00]
6. Ensuring Information Quality & Building Legitimacy
- Fishkin’s process relies on briefing materials vetted by cross-partisan advisory committees. Despite high polarization, agreement on facts has been achieved, even on charged topics like election reform [18:47–19:58].
- Transparency & Trust: Legitimacy emerges through transparency—media coverage helps the public "see people like them" genuinely deliberating, which has built trust in the method [20:59–21:59].
7. Comparison: Deliberative Polls vs. Citizens' Assemblies
- Fishkin highlights two key differences:
- Larger, representative samples with measured baselines and confidential follow-up questionnaires.
- Avoidance of artificial consensus, which can push groups to extremes (unlike the "law of group polarization" seen in classic juries or citizens' assemblies) [22:12–25:52].
- Analysis Technology: Fishkin’s team transcribes and analyzes all group discussions using AI, helping to trace why opinions shift.
8. Online vs. In-person Deliberation
- Deliberative polling now works via platforms using AI moderations, with online and in-person deliberation yielding comparable results (as proven in a Finnish experiment) [27:11–29:23].
- Human Connection: Even online, participants bond, increasing empathy and understanding—evident in an emotional Chilean deliberation [29:49–31:38].
- Quote:
“They were crying at the end that it was over and they wanted to figure out ways to reconvene. And it became very emotional. ... They bonded as a group, just as a face-to-face group would.” – Jim Fishkin [30:20]
9. Broader Applicability and Future Directions
- Fishkin suggests these deliberative methods could be used with specialized populations (e.g., public defenders deliberating on AI tools) but sees their greatest promise in deepening democracy at scale [26:06–27:05].
- Scaling up could potentially depolarize societies, improve decision-making, and re-legitimize democratic processes.
Notable & Memorable Quotes
- On Deliberative Impact:
“We had a series ... on immigration, for example, the Republicans moved from 80% to supporting sending all the undocumented immigrants home to only 40% after deliberation ... changes almost as large as 40 points, which is very dramatic.” – Jim Fishkin [08:56]
- On Building Trust:
"The more transparency and coverage, the better the process produces its own legitimacy. As people see that these are not elite people deliberating. These are people just like them ..." [20:59]
- On Platform Deliberation:
"What the platform does is it mimics what a really good moderator would do. ... No hint of its own opinion about the issue." [28:03]
- On The Future:
“If your listeners read the rest of my book, they’ll see even more detailed plans about how we could scale it. I'd make a more deliberative society.” – Jim Fishkin [32:19]
Key Timestamps
- 00:59 | Fishkin explains the meaning and necessity of deliberation
- 04:48 | How deliberative polling works (sampling, process, controls)
- 07:35 | The issue of group size and representativeness
- 10:27 | Critique of town halls and the problem of unrepresentative participation
- 12:10 | Texas energy deliberation and policy outcomes
- 16:23 | Japanese national nuclear power deliberative poll
- 18:47 | Ensuring a shared factual basis
- 20:59 | Building legitimacy and public trust through transparency
- 22:12 | Deliberative polling vs. citizens' assemblies and the problem of consensus/jury dynamics
- 27:11 | Online vs. face-to-face deliberation
- 29:49 | Human connection in online settings; Chilean example
- 32:19 | Fishkin’s vision for scaling deliberative democracy
Tone & Style
The conversation is informal but rigorous, deeply rooted in empirical evidence and practical application, with both Fukuyama and Fishkin trading observations and critiques candidly. Fishkin is optimistic but realistic, emphasizing both challenges and achievements.
Conclusion
This episode offers a compelling exploration of how deliberation, scientifically structured and scaled via modern technology, can heal polarization and reinvigorate democratic legitimacy—if political will exists to implement it more broadly. For more detailed plans, Fishkin encourages a closer look at his new book, “Can Deliberation Cure the Ills of Democracy?” [32:19].