Designing A Game for Deliberative Decisionmaking

1. Designing A Gamefor Deliberative Decisionmaking Amy Lee Program Officer, Kettering Foundation Dayton, OH alee@kettering.org

2. Background • Kettering is a non-profit, non-partisan research operation that studies what it takes to make democracy work as it should • One of the major challenges is to democracy is citizens’ difficulty in making sound collective decisions about “wicked” problems • KF research has found that “deliberative” decision making is most effective for these kinds of problems

3. Introduction to innovation games • SXSW presentation on San Jose Budget Game • Impressed by Luke Hohmann’s identification of decision making as a major challenge to democracy • Potential of games as a tool for decision making “Developing truly innovative products requires deep understanding of a customer’s real needs.”

4. What is a “deliberative” decision? • Based not on conventional framing or expert knowledge, but in terms of “things held valuable,” basic citizen concerns • Working through tradeoffs— the poison pills that sabotage many decisions • Identification of common ground for action, as well as remaining disagreements

5. What is a “deliberative” decision? Considering all these competing concerns, what should we do?

6. What is NOT A deliberative decision? • Technical decision • Polarizing: never only two choices • A debate, or simply dialogue • Reaching consensus or “getting to yes” • Negotiation • Voting • Not necessarily a binding collective decision

7. NIF “Deliberative” Decision making • Find out what citizens’ deep concerns arearound a wicked problem • Frame approaches for addressing the problem based on these concerns • Convene public forums for citizens to deliberate on these approaches

8. NIF “Deliberative” Decision making • Convene public forums for citizens to deliberate on these approaches • Evaluate choices in terms of things held valuable, not “practicality” or instrumental concerns • Work through tradeoffs • Weigh advantages against tradeoffs • Identify common ground for action

9. Goals of deliberative decisionmaking • Identification of common ground for action • Identification of tradeoffs people are/are not willing to make • Increase the quality of public decisions • Amelioration of polarization through participants realizing that different judgments are products of differing experience • Expansion of what is politically “permissible”

10. Why aN online game? • To expand opportunities for deliberative decision making • Engage audiences that may not come to in-person forums • Hypothesis: Game will keep players engaged in a way an online forum might not • Hypothesis: Game will subvert some of the typical behaviors people use when discussing issues

11. Game content • Based on NIF issue guide Immigration: How Do We Fix A System in Crisis • Options based on thingscitizens held valuable: • Openness • Security • Practicality

12. Game content Option 1: Welcome New Arrivals • Create a path to citizenship for undoc-umented workers • Tradeoff: Rewards those who have cometo the country illegally, might encourage illegalimmigration • Streamline entire immigration process, clear backlog • Tradeoff: will require increased resources, increases competition for jobs in US, increases the need to absorb and assimilate newcomers into communities

13. Game content Option 2: Protect Our Borders • Tighten border security • Tradeoff: Driving immigration underground makes it more dangerous, and fewer immigrants could cause price of goods and services to rise • Invest in Mexico to stem tide of immigration • Tradeoff: Increased costs, may make Mexico more attractive than US as site for business • Rein in benefits to undocumented immigrantsand their children • Tradeoff: compromises ourhumanitarian values

14. Game content Option 3: Promote Economic Prosperity • Adjust immigration quotas depending on strengthof overall economy • Tradeoff: We likely wouldn’t be accepting as many immigrants who come here for reasons otherthan work, such as refugees • Issue green cards to all foreign students who grad-uate from US universities, particularly in STEM, other needed fields • Tradeoff: Stiffens competition for jobs for those already here • Grant temporary start-up visas to foreign entrepreneurs • Tradeoff: Makes immigration a privilege for those who can afford it

15. Game design You’re helping us test it!

16. “Common Ground for Action Game” Cyrus Evanado The Innovation Games Company cyrus.evanado@innovationgames.com

17. Game Objective • Emphasize voluntary input • Do not put individuals on the spot • Do not force group to come to a conclusion • Find where common ground exist • Find where there is strong disagreement

18. Game play • Moderator starts game and allows participants to enter the game • Moderator welcomes participants, makes introductory remarks, show video • Moderator plays a game for each Option

35. Moderator • Is there Common Ground for Action here? • Does the group agree on rankings? • Does the group agree on all, some or none of the actions? • Allow players to change their rankings? • Move to next Option

36. Moderator • Create a group ranking (shared likelist) • Moderator controls and change ranking • Players rate / agree / discuss

37. Thank You Cyrus Evanado cyrus.evanado@innovationgames.com