As Development Director for the Oregon Bus Project, she helped the youth civic engagement organization greatly expand its operations and grow into multiple states. She has also served as a Legislative Advisor in Salem and as Policy Director for citywide campaigns in Portland.

“Lucy’s already demonstrated that she has the skills and drive to make meaningful and positive political change.  It’s great to bring her on board as part of the Healthy Democracy team,” said Healthy Democracy’s Executive Director Tyrone Reitman.

The post HEALTHY DEMOCRACY ANNOUNCES NEW DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS MANAGER appeared first on Healthy Democracy.

The report was just released, and the results are incredibly exciting. Researchers found that a majority of voters were aware of the CIR, and two-thirds of those who read a statement found it helpful.

The post 2012 Citizens’ Initiative Review is most effective yet appeared first on Healthy Democracy.

Guest Post: The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review

by John Gastil, February 26

Local and statewide initiatives and referenda give citizens the opportunity to vote directly on legislation, but voters often lack the information they need to make informed choices. The State of Oregon has created a potential remedy for this situation, called the Citizens Initiative Review (CIR), which convenes a group of average citizens together to evaluate ballot measures and share their recommendations with the voting public.

Healthy Democracy, the innovative organization behind the CIR, is a grantee of the Democracy Fund. My colleagues and I recently completed an evaluation of the 2012 CIR process in order to understand its quality and impact.

Last fall, the CIR Commission, which was established by the Governor in 2011, convened panels of 24 randomly-selected, demographically representative Oregon citizens to spend a full week examining two different ballot measures. One initiative proposed reforming the corporate tax system and the other would have authorized the construction of private casinos in Oregon. At the end of their deliberations, each panel produced a one page CIR Citizens’ Statement that went into the official Voter’s Pamphlet that the state mailed to every registered Oregon voter. The panels’ judgments ultimately matched the election outcomes, with voters ending a corporate tax refund and declining to authorize private casinos.

Among other things, our research team found that:

•  A majority of Oregon voters were aware of the CIR.

• Roughly two-thirds of those who read the CIR Statements found them helpful when deciding how to vote.

• Those who read a CIR Statement learned more about the ballot measures than those who read other portions of the official Voter’s Guide.

For me, the most interesting finding is the impact of the CIR on voter knowledge. As the CIR Commission’s webpage explains, the Oregon process “is an innovative way of publicly evaluating ballot measures so voters have clear, useful, and trustworthy information at election time.” So, we wanted to find out whether the CIR actually does increase voter knowledge and voters’ confidence in the facts that they learn.

To answer that question, we chose to conduct an online survey. When contacted in the final weeks before the election, some survey respondents were shown a CIR Statement and others were shown nothing. We then asked respondents to assess whether 10 factual statements pertinent to the ballot measure were true or false. Respondents frequently expressed uncertainty and chose the “don’t know” response, but many did claim to know whether each statement “definitely” or “probably” was true or false.

Those who read the CIR Statement outperformed the control group on nine of the ten knowledge items. Those who had read the CIR recommendations answered, on average, twice as many knowledge items correctly—again, with “don’t know” responses being more common that inaccurate ones. Real Oregon voters who had not yet read the Voters’ Pamphlet gained more knowledge from reading the CIR Statement than from either equivalent doses of paid pro/con arguments or the official Explanatory and Fiscal statements.

Figure 1. Average number of correct answers on a ten-item knowledge battery regarding Measure 85 for each of four experimental conditions in the online survey

You can download the full report to learn more about our evaluation findings.

Though the Oregon CIR is not a panacea for all of the weaknesses of the initiative and referendum system, our findings—along with those from our 2010 evaluation report—do support the view that everyday citizens can produce high-quality deliberation on complex policies and give their peers accurate and useful information to consider before voting. Moreover, it’s clear that by distributing those results through the official Voter’s Guide, the Oregon CIR reaches and influences large numbers of voters in Oregon.

Yale democratic theorist Robert Dahl wrote in On Democracy (1998),

One of the imperative needs of democratic countries is to improve citizens’ capacities to engage intelligently in political life . . . In the years to come . . . older institutions will need to be enhanced by new means for civic education, political participation, information, and deliberation that draw creatively on the array of techniques and technologies available in the twenty-first century.

The Oregon CIR appears to be one such institution, ingeniously using citizens themselves to inform the judgments of their peers. The one hitch is that the CIR does not receive any state funds, so it remains unclear whether it will continue to thrive—or spread to other states—in future years.

John Gastil (jgastil@psu.edu) is Professor and Head of the Department of Communication Arts and Sciences at Pennsylvania State University and the Director of the Penn State Democracy Institute. His most recent books include the co-edited volume Democracy in Motion: Evaluating the Practice and Impact of Deliberative Civic Engagement and The Jury and Democracy, both by Oxford University Press.

The post Democracy Fund Blog Guest Post: Professor John Gastil on The Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review appeared first on Healthy Democracy.

DESCRIPTION:

Healthy Democracy is seeking an experienced and driven advocate for political change to join our Oregon-based team in the position of Development & Communications Manager. Healthy Democracy is a nationally recognized, Oregon-based, 501c(3) organization working at the cutting edge of the movement for deliberative democracy.   We work to advance innovative and powerful ways for the public to engage in the democratic process and improve our political discourse. This full-time position will plan, oversee, and implement Healthy Democracy’s fundraising and communications activities.

Healthy Democracy’s flagship program, the Citizens’ Initiative Review (CIR), convenes randomly selected groups of voters, in an official capacity, to evaluate ballot measures.  The results of the CIR are published in the statewide voters’ pamphlet in order to provide a trustworthy source of fact-based information at election time.   After a highly successful test run of the CIR in 2010, the CIR was adopted into law by the Oregon Legislature in 2011.  In 2012, Healthy Democracy worked on behalf of the newly appointed Oregon CIR Commission to run two CIRs.  Oregon’s CIR is recognized as national first and is widely viewed as a model for election reform and civic engagement.

We are currently supporting Oregon’s new CIR Commission, developing strategic new reform programs based on the same principles as the CIR, and working with national foundations and partners to bring the CIR to other western states.  See www.healthydemocracy.org for additional information about our programs and current projects.

SCOPE OF POSITION:

We are looking for an experienced professional with the right combination of skills, demonstrated success in a non-profit or campaign setting, and sense of purpose to join us at this exciting time.  The position will be based out of our Portland office.

The Development & Communications Manager will work closely with the staff and Board of Directors’ fundraising team, to develop and execute HD’s fundraising, outreach, and focused communications strategies. These include:

1)      Planning, supervising, and executing our Oregon-based outreach and communications efforts, events, and strategic campaigns;

2)      Developing, supervising, and executing our membership, major gifts, and fundraising event strategies;

3)      Providing leadership to the staff and Board of Directors to achieve our annual and long-range fundraising goals;

4)      Managing and tracking of all grant proposals, donors, and related contacts.

RESPONSIBILITIES:

Annual Fund:

• Collaborate with the Executive Director and Board of Directors on annual fundraising plan and goals; standard metric reporting; draft annual report.
• Provide leadership and training for staff, the Board of Directors, committee members, and other volunteers in the fundraising process.
• Set appointments with donors for staff: Executive Director, Policy & Projects Director, and Development and Communications Manager; participate in donor cultivation and relationship building.
• Manage development of all fundraising and outreach related materials (online and print); work with vendors and consultants.

Communications & Outreach:

• Plan and manage logistics for communications activities, outreach events and strategic advocacy campaigns.
• Plan and manage logistics for social media and online outreach activities (duties shared with Administrative Coordinator).
• Manage media inquiries.
• Plan, develop, and manage content creation for press releases, website, guest editorials and all related organizational copy.
• Manage data regarding outreach contacts, tracking and follow-ups; conduct research to identify new contacts (duties shared with Administrative Coordinator).

Memberships & Sponsorships:

• Plan and manage HD membership program, goals, incentives, membership activities (duties shared with Administrative Coordinator).
• Plan and manage HD volunteer support activities (duties shared with Administrative Coordinator).
• Data management of donor profiles; tracking and follow-up of gifts and pledges; conduct donor research to identify new prospects (duties shared with Administrative Coordinator).
• Solicit corporate sponsorships and perform related activities.

Grant Program:

• Create and update annual grant calendar to track deadlines for submitting grant proposals and reports.
• Project–manage the preparation of all grant proposals and reports.
• Conduct research to identify new grant prospects and partnerships

Other Duties:

• Support program event activities, out-of-state outreach activities, and online training events as needed.
• Other duties as assigned.

QUALIFICATIONS: 

We are looking for someone with a passion for civic engagement and improving our democratic process to join a small team of dedicated professionals.   The Development & Communications Manager should be outgoing, entrepreneurial, and enjoy working in a fast-paced political environment.  Ideal candidates will possess at least 3-5 years of successful fundraising and event management experience (nonprofit or campaign experience), strong communications and advocacy skills, and have a substantial knowledge of effective outreach organizing, communications, and fundraising strategies.

Minimum qualifications include a bachelor’s degree in a related field and 3 – 5 years relevant work experience.   Candidates should possess the ability to work under multiple deadlines, have excellent project management skills, be able to work with a diversity of stakeholders, demonstrate excellent written and verbal communication skills, and have a high degree of computer literacy and database management.  Some travel, primarily in state, will be also required.

Exceptional candidates will also possess a successful track record of securing foundation and grant funding, knowledge of Oregon politics and political processes, and prior public speaking experience.

Compensation: $45K – $55K DOE.  Full-time exempt. Generous PTO, paid holidays, flex-time, and health coverage benefit.

Location: Portland, Oregon

 Posted:  1/22/2013

 Closing Date: February 28. Candidate submissions will be considered as they are received, so early submission is encouraged.

 To Apply: Email applications only. Do not call. Send electronic copies of: 1) cover letter describing your interest and qualifications for this position, 2) resume, 3) writing sample, 4) and contact information for three references to: info@healthydemocracy.org.

 Note: Applicants will be emailed to verify that their application has been received. Please do not call to check on your application status. The Search Committee will respond to applicants of interest directly.

Healthy Democracy is an equal opportunity employer. We carefully consider applicants for all positions without regard to race, color, religion, creed, gender, national origin, age, disability, marital or veteran status, sexual orientation, or any other legally protected status.

The post Healthy Democracy is hiring! appeared first on Healthy Democracy.

We’d also like to welcome new board members, Elliot Shuford, Marge Easley and Robin Teater.

Elliot recently transitioned from the Healthy Democracy staff, and we salute him for his years of leadership and representation of the CIR to decision makers and community leaders. We’re pleased that he will continue to serve on the Healthy Democracy Board of Directors.

Marge Easley has held many leadership positions with the League of Women Voters, most recently as state president from 2007-2011. Robin Teater currently serves as the executive director of the American Leadership Forum of Oregon. Both Marge Easley and Robin Teater bring a wealth of leadership, advocacy and nonprofit administration experience to the Healthy Democracy board. To read their full bios, please visit the Healthy Democracy website here.

The post Healthy Democracy Welcomes New Board Members appeared first on Healthy Democracy.

Posted: Wednesday, October 31, 2012

By Jim Moore / The Daily Courier

Kay Ogden said being selected for one of Oregon’s historic new citizen initiative review commissions made her feel as if she had won the lottery.

“I saw it as an opportunity to be part of the democratic process,” the Grants Pass resident said.

She joined 23 other registered Oregon voters in Portland for five days in August. The diverse panel dissected the pros and cons of Measure 82 on the Nov. 6 ballot. Their comments are featured in the State Voters’ Pamphlet.

Measure 82 would amend the state constitution to allow private, non-tribal casinos in Oregon. Although they succeeded in getting it on the ballot, supporters have ceased their campaign.
But that’s another story.

Ogden’s story began last summer when she received a letter from Healthy Democracy Oregon informing her that she was one of 10,000 randomly selected voters in the state. She was asked whether she would spare five days to join other voters in sorting through a ballot measure.

The retired middle-school teacher, who spent three decades working for the Three Rivers School District, had to act fast.

“I didn’t have much time to think about it because we had just got home from a trip,” Ogden said. That was on a Friday, and the letter was part of a passel of mail waiting to be picked up.

“I had to decide by Monday,” she said, but it was an easy decision, considering the momentous nature of the invitation.

Healthy Democracy Oregon is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization whose goal is to strengthen citizen ownership of the ballot initiative process and its integrity. That group oversees the citizen initiative review commissions.

The first two commissions convened this summer.

Each commission included 24 voters from across the state who learned about and publicly evaluated a ballot measure. Healthy Democracy strived to balance the demographics to fairly represent a cross-section of the state’s electorate.

Ogden was impressed with the diversity of her fellow panel members, who ranged in age from retired to a girl who had just recently graduated high school and registered to vote, but had yet to cast her first ballot.

“A fun thing was to see the young people get involved,” Ogden said.

She was also impressed by the group’s objectivity. “Most people came in with an open mind,” she said.

Their assignment, as they saw it, was to present the measure in language that would make sure voters understood exactly what it would do, and knew it would amend the state constitution.

The panelists were moderated by two women who “kept us on task,” Ogden said.

The panel not only analyzed and discussed the measure, but listened to arguments by advocates and opponents.

And lest any of the panelists forget the significance of their effort, observers from places such as Colorado and California dropped by to see how the groundbreaking effort worked. “There were a lot of people watching that whole process,” Ogden said.

She said the exercise was thorough, nerve-wracking and, in the end, nobody could escape without saying yes or no. “On the fourth day we had to pick a side and we weren’t allowed not to pick,” she said.

The Voters’ Pamphlet shows that 17 members of Ogden’s panel opposed Measure 82 and seven were in favor.

Ogden was one of the 17, but if she hadn’t participated in the panel, her vote might have been different.

“It really surprised me because I changed my mind,” she said. “I went in supporting it, but in the end, I didn’t feel it was really going to benefit Southern Oregon.”

Voters can benefit from the work done by Ogden and other panelists by reading their comments in the Voters’ Pamphlet.

Ogden will tell you she benefited as well. “It was a great experience. It was so educational.”

The post Part of the democratic process appeared first on Healthy Democracy.

In-depth review of casino measures shows that Oregon ballot proposals are complex

Posted: Thursday, October 25, 2012 11:33 am

By Nancy McCarthy/ The Daily Astorian

CANNON BEACH — Sue Meyers might have glanced at the opinions expressed about the initiative measures in prior Oregon Voters’ Pamphlets, but she rarely read them in depth.

However, since her weeklong experience with the Citizens Initiative Review, which delved into ballot Measure 82, she will take those opinions more seriously.

“It gave me a new respect for the voters pamphlet,” said Meyers. “I think a lot of people don’t read it. They just listen to television ads.”

The Citizens Initiative Review is sponsored by Healthy Democracy, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that works to provide information to voters about initiatives on the ballot.

This is the first year that the Citizens Initiative Review has conducted an official review of ballot measures. It conducted a demonstration project on one ballot measure in 2008 and a pilot in 2010 after the Legislature, in 2009, approved the proposal as a permanent process to review initiative ballot measures in elections.

Oregon is the only state in the nation that has such a process, according to Tony Iaccarino, policy and projects director for Healthy Democracy.

This year, Citizens Initiative Review panels studied two ballot measures. Measure 85 proposes allocating revenue from corporate income and excise tax “kicker” refunds to the general fund for K-12 public education.

Measure 82 proposes amending the Oregon constitution to allow privately owned casinos if they meet certain criteria. That measure is accompanied by Ballot Measure 83, which would authorize the operation of a casino, called “The Grange,” at the former Multnomah Kennel Club in Wood Village.

Meyers, who is the motel manager of Land’s End at Cannon Beach, first learned of the review in May when she received a letter asking if she wanted to participate on a panel that would review one ballot measure for a week in August.

“I checked to see if I had that week free, and I did. I sent back a reply saying I was interested and forgot all about it,” Meyers said. “Then I got a letter saying, ‘We picked you.’”

Meyers was one of the 800 people who responded to the letter, sent to a random sample of 10,000 registered voters, Iaccarino said.

The information provided by the 800 respondents, including their party affiliation, ethnicity, gender, age, education level, voting frequency and place of residence, was put into a data base and sorted.

“We ended up with a 24-member panel that was almost a perfect representation of the registered voter population in Oregon,” Iaccarino said.

In party representation, for example, 42 percent of Oregonians are Democrats; 32 percent are Republicans; and 26 percent are nonpartisan, Independents and “other.” On the panel, there were 10 Democrats; eight Republicans; and six who represented the category of nonpartisans, Independents and “others.”

Meyers was the only person from the North Coast to participate on that panel, although areas on the central and south coasts were represented as well.

“We had a wide range of ages, from one gal barely out of high school who had never voted to a grandma in her 70s,” Meyers said.

The panelists were paid $150 a day, as well as the cost of transportation, hotel rooms and lunch, said Iaccarino, who estimated that it cost $100,000 each to conduct the two reviews.

None of the funding for the reviews is at taxpayers’ expense, Iaccarino said. Contributions come from charitable organizations and individuals. However, donations aren’t accepted from corporations, union treasuries or political action committees, he said.

“We were asked to come with an open mind and to keep an open mind for the week,” Meyers said. “It was like a jury: We weren’t allowed to talk to the other people about the topic.”

She called the experience of spending eight hours a day for a week on one measure “fascinating.”

After learning the procedures on the first day, testing out a simulation exercise and being introduced to the measure, the panelists began studying Measure 82 in depth.

They heard presentations from the measure’s sponsors and opponents, they prepared questions and were able to request experts to come and answer those questions. Then, the panelists listed key findings and prepared them for inclusion in the voters pamphlet.

“It was overwhelming,” Meyers said. “They threw a lot at us – letters from people on both sides, statistics, graphs, a lot of reading. I felt like I was back in college.”

Speakers the panelists talked to during the week included The Grange’s developer and the campaign manager; a representative from the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, operators of the Spirit Mountain Casino; Oregon Lottery representatives; economics experts knowledgeable in gambling issues and addiction; two state economists; security personnel; and the Native American Affairs coordinator for the Oregon Department of Justice, among others.

“It was interesting when the experts didn’t agree,” said Meyers.

For instance, the economists, she said, could only project how much income the casino might earn, but they couldn’t agree on how the casino might affect nearby businesses that already had video poker machines.

Iaccarino said the Healthy Democracy organizers want the panelists to “have the resources the Legislature has.” Legislative committees can call experts to testify about a proposed bill, they deliberate on it, draft statements, have the statements reviewed by experts and either accept or ignore the experts’ recommendations.

“Panelists remark on how they gain a new appreciation about how complex the issues are. But they also express confidence in their knowledge about an issue,” Iaccarino said.

At the end of the week, 17 of the 24 panelists recommended that voters oppose the measure. Meyers and six others, however, supported it.

She said she understood why critics would be concerned about The Grange’s social impact, problem gamblers and possibly more crime, but she believed the benefits outweighed the potential problems.

The casino will be built with sustainable materials, will provide millions of dollars in tax revenue and it will provide more entertainment than gambling, she said. A water park, bowling alley and movie theatre also are planned on the site of the former Multnomah Kennel Club.

“I think it will be a top-notch tourist attraction that people will want to go to,” Meyers said.

After hearing discussions from an expert on gambling addictions, Meyers decided that the proposed casino wouldn’t worsen the problem. The state also has a fund to help people with gambling addictions, she said, and the new casino would be paying into that fund.

“People who want to gamble – they’re going to find a way to do that,” she said.

In addition, Meyers added, the Oregon State Police couldn’t provide the facts that proved the casino would create more crime.

Although some economists said that area businesses with video poker machines would lose money and the state would see a reduction in proceeds from those machines, Meyers disagreed.

“People who go to their local bar to play video poker aren’t going to change their ways,” she said, noting that those bars and restaurants are usually where their friends hang out, too.

The state stands to gain $32 million to $54 million in revenue from the casino, Meyers added.

Although Ballot Measure 82 allows private casinos in the state, they won’t go in automatically, Meyers said. Ballot Measure 83 requires voters in a community where a casino is proposed to approve the casino first.

“They have the option to say, ‘not in my backyard,’” Meyers said.

After the experience with the Citizens Initiative Review, she said she was interested in watching the television commercials both supporting and opposing the casino.

“The ones against it were trying to appeal to peoples’ morals and feelings. But they don’t have the facts to back them up, where the ‘pro’ side does,” Meyers said.

When the casino’s proponents, sensing that it would be defeated easily, suspended their campaign, Meyers was unhappy.

“I’m really disappointed,” she said. “I’m going to contact the campaign manager and I’m going to write to the governor about his commercial.”

In his commercial, Gov. John Kitzhaber urges voters to defeat the measure and says it is being proposed by a “foreign” company. The Grange’s primary investors are two Canadian companies that have partnered with two Lake Oswego investors.

“I thought it was a great project,” Meyers said about The Grange. “I almost want to do a grassroots effort and form a citizens group to support it. I think people are misinformed and are making a decision based on fear and emotion. They’re not looking at it from a business standpoint.”

The post A brand new take on the Oregon voters’ pamphlet appeared first on Healthy Democracy.

With the election just around the corner, we’ve added a number of new web resources for Oregon voters to our website.

Take a look at our just-released video, What Does a Healthy Democracy Look Like? Learn about the history and significance of the Citizens’ Initiative Review process in Oregon and find out how Healthy Democracy is working to engage voters in the democratic process and improve our political discourse.

You can also browse the Citizens’ Initiative Review results on two in-depth pages specific to each measure:
•    Measure 82: would authorize the establishment of privately-owned casinos in Oregon
•    Measure 85: would redirect the corporate kicker tax refund to support K-12 education

Finally, last week, registered voters across the state of Oregon opened their mailboxes to find the newly minted 2012 General Election voters’ pamphlets inside. On the pages following the descriptions of ballot measures 82 and 85, you’ll find the ‘Citizens’ Statements’ highlighting the most important findings on the two measures reviewed during the 2012 CIRs.

To stay in the loop on a regular basis, sign up for our Newsletter and “like” our Facebook page.

Thanks for your continued support and interest in our work!

The post Voter Resources Hot off the Press! appeared first on Healthy Democracy.

By John Gastil / Centre Daily Times

Published: October 14, 2012

As the presidential election lurches toward its conclusion, one can’t help but despair. Fact-checkers find speeches littered with falsehoods. The media bat at shiny new gaffes like distracted cats. Candidates posture for a slim majority. All this detracts from the more profound purpose of voting — namely, to give the public an opportunity to study and weigh in on our most pressing issues.

Even if 2012 proves to be a democratic election, it will certainly not prove a deliberative one. This idea of “deliberating” together has a long history, which resonates with the best aspirations of our nation’s founders and the historic practice of self-government, from the councils of the Iroquois to the rhetoric of ancient Greece.

At Penn State, many colleagues and I aim to recapture that idea through work in the Democracy Institute and one of its partners, the Center for Democratic Deliberation. Some center researchers, myself included, study modern innovations in public deliberation, and we find that looking at these innovations gives us hope.

One of the most promising new institutions is the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review, which a bipartisan legislature made a permanent part of that state’s electoral process in 2011. The review convenes a representative random sample of 24 citizens for a weeklong deliberation on a state ballot measure.

Citizen panelists interrogate advocates, opponents and background witnesses; and they scrutinize evidence and arguments to produce a one-page statement. Their analysis then appears in the official Voters’ Pamphlet, which the secretary of state mails to every registered Oregon voter.

What is the consequence of such a process?

Research from 2010 showed that the reviews had a significant impact on the wider electorate by helping them sort through the complex questions on their ballot. To see the power of these reviews, let’s consider the two panels held this year.

On one measure, the panelists found that the proposed change to state tax law could not guarantee the net increase in education funding it promised. With none of the malice generated by a biased press, however, the panel majority still endorsed the measure, which panelists deemed superior to the status quo.

The other Oregon panel tackled the controversy of establishing private casinos. Well-polished arguments for the measure by savvy advocates did not hold up under weeklong scrutiny. In the end, panelists moved against the measure, owing to doubts about their benefits and certainty about their adverse effect on tribal revenues.

The idea behind the Oregon Citizens’ Initiative Review is simple. When we give citizens a chance to deliberate and inform one another, they usually yield well-reasoned and compassionate judgments. Giving power to the people — but in a way that focuses on deliberation — can lend legitimacy to both government and its decisions. This, after all, is the logic behind our jury system, but this logic can extend far beyond the courthouse.

For example, in British Columbia, Canada, the parliament empowered citizens there to draft new election laws, which were then put to a province-wide vote. Californians have experimented with drafting an initiative via large-scale deliberative polling, and Iceland re-imagined its national constitution via online citizen deliberation. Participatory budgeting, in which the local public conceives, establishes and assesses major public projects, has spread from Brazil to Chicago, New York and California.

As illuminated by work at the Center for Democratic Deliberation and the Democracy Institute, public reason and common purpose cemented the foundations of American democracy. Grounded in those traditions, Penn State researchers are now helping us see beyond our impoverished modern presidential campaign to a richer way of talking and working together that will not merely judge victors but render meaningful judgments.

John Gastil is director of the Penn State Democracy Institute and professor and head of the communication arts and sciences department at Penn State. He can be reached at jgastil@la.psu.edu. Visit the Democracy Institute website at http://democracyinstitute.la.psu.edu for more information.

The post Citizens show success in deliberating issues appeared first on Healthy Democracy.

Harry Esteve / The Oregonian

Published: October 16, 2012

Backers of a proposed casino in Wood Village said today they are suspending their campaign to get voters to approve Measures 82 and 83, which would allow it.

“We knew when we began this process that it would be a challenge to break the existing political and gaming monopoly,” said a news release issued this afternoon. “But we also knew that there was a great opportunity to create a unique entertainment destination in Wood Village.”

The release says the campaign is “suspending operations” and will no longer run paid advertising. According to the latest state reports, supporters have raised and spent more than $5 million, not including the money spent to get the measures on the ballot.

Without an active campaign, the measures stand little chance of passing.

Opponents of the measures said they would continue their campaign, just in case.

We still think it’s really important to educate voters about the reality of these measures,” said Cynara Lilly, spokeswoman for the It’s Still a Bad Idea Committee.

Opponents have spent a little more than $1 million, so far. Most of the moneyhas come from the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde, which run Spirit Mountain Casino outside Salem.

Tribal officials say a casino near Portland would cut deeply into their revenues.

“We think we need to keep having that conversation all the way up to election day,” Lilly said.

“In the last few weeks it appears to the campaign team that not enough Oregon voters are ready to add a private casino to the state’s gaming options,” the release said. No name was attached to the comments.

Measure 82 seeks to amend the state constitution to allow private casinos in Oregon. Measure 83 specifically sites one at the old Multnomah Kennel Club, former home of greyhound racing. The main financial backers were Great Canadian Gaming Corporation, a Vancouver, B.C., company that runs an assortment of casinos, and Clairvest, a private equity and investment group.

The measures will remain on ballots, which will be mailed to voters starting at the end of the week.

– Harry Esteve

The post Measure 82 Proponents Suspend Campaign appeared first on Healthy Democracy.