175 Pennsylvanians discussed controversial policies. Some left happier with the state of American democracy.
Before the "America in One Room" experiment in Philadelphia, 75% of participants said they were dissatisfied with American democracy. After the event, that number decreased to 54%.
Even in an era of extreme polarization, Pennsylvanians changed their opinions and became more confident in American democracy after they talked to one another, researchers found.
According to data released Wednesday, Stanford University researchers found that Pennsylvanians who participated in focus groups and surveys as part of a study on democracy and public opinion changed their minds on some immigration, election, and education policies after they were given balanced information and were allowed to discuss the topics with people they disagreed with.
The study was conducted on voters in the nation’s largest swing state, several months after all eyes were on Pennsylvania during the presidential election. Researchers said participants were selected to create an accurate sample of the Pennsylvania electorate.
The participants left the study reporting higher satisfaction with the state of American democracy and more respect for those with differing opinions.
“When Pennsylvanians were given the space for informed, civil conversation they consistently depolarized on issues that dominate cable news narratives as hopeless partisan battles,” James Fishkin, director of Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab, said in a statement. “This experiment proves that America’s political divisions and opinions are not as intractable as they might seem.”
That opportunity for discussion came in a very controlled environment outside what most American voters encounter on a regular basis.
Last month, researchers with the Deliberative Democracy Lab brought together 175 Pennsylvanians in Philadelphia to hear from public officials and discuss controversial policy issues in small groups as part of their “America in One Room: Pennsylvania” project. The research subjects came from across Pennsylvania and across the political and socioeconomic spectrum.
Participants were given the same 65-question survey before and after the event, and researchers studied how responses changed.
Kyle Taylor, a 32-year-old from Pittsburgh, said he felt less satisfied with the state of democracy after learning more about political systems and hearing directly from politicians. But Taylor said his eyes were opened to challenges across the state. His opinions on healthcare evolved, he said, through learning about problems in rural Pennsylvania. And his position on immigration changed to become less supportive of increasing visas for high-skilled workers.
He said he wished politicians would spend more time listening to discussions like the ones he had.
“I thought that people should do this a lot more. I think it would be excellent for our senators and representatives and things to see some of those things live whenever it’s time to vote on serious issues,” said Taylor, a registered Democrat who says he considers himself an independent.
According to the results, the percentage of participants who said they were dissatisfied with the state of American democracy dropped from 75% to 54% after the presentations and discussions. Similarly, by the end of the event, 91% of participants said they respected opposing political viewpoints, compared with 72% beforehand.
Participants also shifted on several individual policy issues, with increased support for passing policies to ensure that everyone who wants to vote can do so, for more stringent voter identification policies, and for increasing the number of visas provided to low-skilled workers.
Support dropped for policies providing green cards to all noncitizen graduates of U.S. colleges, rent control, and free college tuition.
Amy Kilgore, a 62-year-old Democrat from Armstrong County, said she left the event skeptical that minds had meaningfully been changed, or that the experiment would influence politicians already in office.
However, she noted the shock and empathy she received when she explained her own economic realities, making less than $10 per hour for decades and being unable to afford healthy food like fruits and vegetables.
“Maybe they saw that I’m not just a lazy Democrat, I take care of my family,” she said. “They were definitely sympathetic. I can see where maybe that would persuade people somewhat.”