masses (in primaries, polls, and in referendums) or politicallyrnunequal but relatively more competent elites (in smoke-filledrnrooms). Neither is an adequate form of democracy.rnThe media responded to this dilemma by broadcasting anrnimpressive lineup of nationally televised debates among thernDemocratic candidates. During the period when there werernseveral active candidates, there were 11 nationally televisedrndebates between December 15 and March 15. Seven of thesernwere broadcast by local stations and C-Span. The C-Spanrnnational ratings were very small, but some of the debates relevantrnto particular primaries achieved modestly respectablernlocal ratings. The other four debates were broadcast nationallyrnby NBC, ABC, CNN, and PBS. Ratings of the major networkrnbroadcasts ranged from a low of 2.1 for the climacticrnCNN/League of Women Voters debate before the New Hampshirernprimary to a high of 5.5 for the ABC debate on March 5rnduring its Nightline slot (each rating point is a percent of thern92.1 million television households and represents 921,000rnhouseholds). These ratings put the debates squarely in thernbottom ninth of network programming in their respectivernweeks. Unlike the final presidential debates of the generalrnelections, primary debates (when candidate selection is a livernissue) have not attracted large audiences (the 1988 presidentialrndebates in the general election were estimated to have drawnrnmore than 160 million viewers).rnMy point in mentioning the ratings of these debates is tornemphasize that the effective discourse reaching the public remainsrnthe shrinking soundbite on the network or local news ofrna staged photo opportunity when a candidate passes throughrnimmediately before the relevant primary. Furthermore, it isrnworth noting that these debates, when they were turned intornsoundbites and newspaper stories, were reported mostly inrnterms of whatever conflict, controversy, or confrontation theyrnhappened to generate. The first debate, on NBC, was mostrnnotable for the flap over Jerry Brown’s advertising his 800rnnumber on the air and for Harkin holding up a dollar bill tornsymbolize the value of the middle-class tax cut. The CNN debaternin New Hampshire was reported mostly in terms of thernfire Tsongas drew for his support of nuclear power. The Denverrndebate is remembered for Tsongas’ response to Clintonrnthat while he might not be “perfect,” at least he is “honest.”rnThe Dallas debate was notable for Clinton’s rejoinder to Brownrnthat he should “chill out,” a phrase that Hillary later tookrncredit for in the press. The WLS-Chicago debate the Sundayrnbefore Illinois and Michigan was sparked bv Brown’s exaggeratedrndescription of a Washington Post article about allegedrnconflicts of interest arising from Hillary Clinton’s law firm inrnArkansas. These debates, with the possible exception of thernMacNeillLehrer debate on PBS, were less than eirlightening,rneven for those few citizens who watched them. Yet the principalrndifficulty is that to the extent that the debates reachedrnthe public, they did so primarily in terms of soundbites chosenrnfor drama or conflict, soundbites that could be recvcled onrnnational or local newscasts. The debates, while a noble effort,rndid not improve the quality of the discourse reaching thernpublic.rnAnother effort worth mentioning is the Discovery Channel’srnoffer to all the major candidates to speak directly to thernpublic. Without the filters of pundits or editors, the candidatesrncould reach the public directly for 20 minutes each.rnUnfortunately, the broadcast achieved a rating of only aboutrn1.5, reaching about 1.2 million of the nation’s television households.rnBecause the format was not conducive to drama orrnconflict, it was not widelv reported and produced very fewrnsoundbites.rnImagine a new beginning to our season of presidential selection.rnSuppose we took a national random sample of thernvoting-age population and transported them to a single site.rnWe invite the major presidential candidates for several days ofrnface-to-face questioning in small group sessions. We providernthe citizens with briefing materials beforehand on the major issuesrnfacing the country. At the end of these deliberations,rnwe poll the citizens on their views of both the candidates andrnthe issues.rnSuch an event would constitute what I call a “deliberativernopinion poll.” In Democracy and Deliberation, I try to make thernease for deliberative polls as a response to the problems in ourrnpresidential selection system. An ordinary poll models whatrnthe public thinks, given how little it knows and how little itrnpays attention. A deliberative poll models what the publicrnwould think if it had a more adequate chance to think aboutrnthe issues. The point of an ordinary poll is descriptive. Itrnprovides a snapshot of the public’s unreflective preferences.rnThe point of a deliberative poll is prescriptive. It gives voice tornthe people under special conditions, whereupon the peoplernwould have a voice worth listening to.rnI proposed to demonstrate this notion on national televisionrn(on PBS) in 1992. After the event was announced by WETArn(the Washington PBS station), full funding was not achieved,rnand the event was unfortunately canceled for this presidentialrnseason. However, the event has now been adopted not only byrnWETA, but also by all ten of the nation’s presidential libraries,rnand we propose to start eariy for 1996. Note that a successfulrndemonstration of the idea could transform the presidentialrnselection system by turning the “invisible primary” into a deliberativernevent. Given the role of momentum in the invisiblernprimary, a change in the way candidacies are launched couldrndetermine the results. Instead of an event like the Floridarnstraw poll, which is both unrepresentative of the country andrnundeliberative, we would have an event that is both representativernof the entire country in all its diversity and deliberativernon the issues.rnThe Florida straw poll, which represents party activists inrnone Southern state, played a major role this year in Clinton’srnrise to the front, just as it played a major role in Jimmy Carter’srnemergence before the Iowa caucuses in 1976. Instead of candidatesrnrepeating standard stump speeches, we might imaginerna process whereby they arc forced to respond in depth on thernissues, with sustained follow-ups. The premium that applies tornunrehearsed political discourse was dramatized by the incidentrnlast December when President Bush, in a teleconferencernto a teachers’ convention in California, complained that he wasrnasked the questions in the wrong order. An apparently spontaneousrnevent was actually one that was carefully scripted.rnNew innovations are necessary if we are to create a publicrnvoice for the expression of the will of the people. Deliberativernopinion polls conducted at the beginning of the selection processrncould have a major effect on all that follows. It would representrna constructive use of the same three factors that have facilitatedrnthe rise of plebiscitary democracy—the impulse tornbring the people into the process, the rise of television, and therndevelopment of public-opinion polling.rnNOVEMBER 1992/25rnrnrn