For the most part, when considering questions of reform, the (often implicit) assumption is that members of the public are passive recipients of the reform proposal, their principal role generally being to pass judgment (e.g. in a referendum, or in a subsequent election) on a proposal presented as a fait accompli that has resulted from a process led by their elected representatives.
Deliberative methods, as used by the citizens’, have given citizens (at least that portion randomly selected as members) a more pro-active role in framing the issue being considered. Surveys of the citizen members by Fournier et al. (2011) reveal how the members’ attitudes to the electoral system evolved over the course of their deliberations.
The ongoing Irish Constitutional Convention (www.convention.ie) takes this to another level due to the fact that it has been given a year to consider a series of issues. To date this has resulted in 24 specific recommendations for reform and (at the time of writing) a commitment from government to hold three referendums with the possibility that others may follow.
This paper makes use of data gathered from a series of surveys of ICC members implemented before and after each weekend. This allows us to track the evolution of opinion relating to the issue at hand. In addition, there was a standard battery of questions relating to all eight issues that was repeated in each survey allowing us to track the evolution of views right across the period.
The mix of issues being considered – from high-profile moral questions over same-sex marriage or blasphemy through to technical issues such as electoral reform or the voting age – provides a wonderful opportunity to assess the degree to which position-taking is fixed depending on the types of issue under consideration.
