The Case for Deliberation: #SmartGrid starts with Smart Government, #democracy

A more reliable power system that facilitates 21st century services and reduces economical inefficiency and emissions that are harmful to health and the environment hardly seems like a divisive idea.  However, lack of consumer education, consumer distrust of certain policies or technologies and an uncertain, constantly-shifting energy policy in a highly-polarized socio-political environment are some of the dogged issues that challenge a more swift and comprehensive modernization of our aging, mostly-unchanged 18th century power model in this age of the iPhone.

Every day, energy consumers from individuals, colleges, hospitals, government and commercial-industrial facilities are wasting obscene amounts of money, when there is, in my view, a clear business and ethical case for modernization and investors ready to cash in on a secure return in face of nervous stock markets.  Why aren't more power users seizing the opportunities (see, for example, lighting)? 


Utilities implement new technology like advanced metering infrastructure as part of an overall infrastructure upgrade to improve the quality and availability of existing service and opening the doors to new options for consumers, but misinformation, confusion, and distrust prevail in a number of communities.  How can we address this situation?

We look forward to your opinion and insights. 

This set of issues can be seen, however, in a greater context.  How are communities and organizations supposed to make smarter decisions if they are mis-informed? How can a relative consensus be reached if there is little, effective conversation, in this increasingly distracted and polarized society?  Who has the time to become an expert in energy, healthcare, fiscal, foreign, environmental, and myriads of other policies?  It's difficult to understand the big issues between the daily responsibilities, email jail, sitting in traffic, constant electronic stimuli, and the few things people try to squeeze in to remain human (enjoy time with family, friends, nature, community, and creative endeavors, and oh yes, sleep).  Most people, as demonstrated by low participation level is elections, see their singular vote as relatively insignificant in the big picture.  How do we overcome this so-called "rational ignorance"?

Unfortunately, the majority of our paid, elected officials don't seem very successful in the advancement of civilization, either.  How can we have smarter cities and countries without smarter policies?  The solution is apparent: we need more educated citizens.  Education is the first thing to get cut by politicians, so no luck there.  How about the Internet and its repository of knowledge and news media from multiple perspectives, including analysis by more independent journalists.  Unfortunately, misperceptions are resilient as humans aren't typically motivated to change their views, so we have a tendency to find media and information that re-enforces our current biases and paradigms.  This problem is looking more intractable by the minute.

Deliberative Polling

The problem is not that "the masses," the "common people" are stupid, inept, or unwise.  In fact, recent experiments with a more direct form of democracy prove quite the contrary.  We do not have a shortage of intelligence.  What we lack is effective dialogue. 

It is also not enough to ask people for their "opinion."  Mere opinion polls or the common notion of internet direct democracy do not reflect the wisest answers a people can provide, because they do not reflect what people think.  People hardly think when answering polls.  Ask most people about "microgrids" and you will likely draw stares.  However, if you simply poll them about it with a yes, no, or don't know question, you will magically have strong opinions (apparently).  The most scientific and inclusive poll is rendered useless unless respondants are minimally qualified to answer.  Who gets to decide who is sufficiently lucid in a matter?

"Asked for their opinion of the [fictious "Public Affairs Act of 1975"], large percentages of the public either supported or opposed it, even though no such act was ever passed. In 1995, The Washington Post celebrated the "twentieth unanniversary" of the nonexistent act by asking respondents about its "repeal." Half the respondents were told that President Clinton wanted to repeal the act; the other half were informed that the "Republican Congress" favored its repeal. The respondents apparently used these cues to guide their answers, without recognizing the fictional character of the entire endeavor."
- Fishkin/Akerman

Enter the Deliberative Polling(R) method.  A statistically-significant and demographically and attitudinally representative sample of a population is invited to deliberate on a policy issue: how to address an aging, costly electric infrastructure?  Experts representing different opinions and relevant areas of expertise are also invited.  Deliberative Polling, developed by Dr. Fishkin from Stanford University's Center for Deliberative Democracy, engages a microcosm of society in discussion and gives them a chance to listen to and question experts.  The results have been applied toward conflict resolution, energy policy, governance, health policy and other areas from municipalities to states and even at an event at the European Parliament with representatives of 27 nations who spoke 23 different languages.

The case of Texas is particularly interesting.  A conventional fuel industry stronghold, which was 49th in the U.S. in wind energy production, became a leader in renewable energy generation, with the support of electric energy consumers.  It is an example of how decision-making and policies are more intelligent and resilient for the long-term when we help enough people to take the time from their busy lives to really learn and debate issues.

With deliberative polls, on the other hand, people actually have the chance to think and, golly, even change their mind.  It also brings people closer together because they get to see other people's points of view and it is harder to demonize people you actually get to know a little.  Northern Ireland Catholics and Protestants agreeing that their children should spend more time together.  Chinese villagers contributing to the discussion of budget priorities.  Americans agreeing on specific, smarter energy policies.  Would there have been less resistance to smart meters based on misinformation regarding RF, security, and other issues and a better understanding of why they are needed to begin with, if there had been deliberative polling activities so customers have a chance to educate themselves and reach their own conclusions and consensus?

Deliberative Polling

Stanford University Dr. Fishkin's Deliberative Polling Process

Bobby Fishkin, son of the proponent of Deliberative Polling,
takes the concept to the next level

For our lusophone readers: Dr. J. Vasconcelos, author of Democracia Pura questions
how representative is "representative democracy"?