Fact Sheet on
Completed Citizens Assemblies
Note: This is Table 1 in J.H. Snider's Would You Ask Turkey's to Mandate Thanksgiving? Using Citizens Assemblies to Reform the Process of Democratic Reform. If you use Table 1, please reference it as J.H. Snider, "Would You Ask Turkey's to Mandate Thanksgiving? Using Citizens Assemblies to Reform the Process of Democratic Reform," Working Paper D-46 (Cambridge, MA: Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, July 2008).
Table 1. Comparison of|
|
|
|
|
|
Meetings Start |
January 2004 |
March 2006 |
September 2006 |
|
Meetings Finish |
November 2004 |
November 2006 |
April 2007 |
|
Date of Final
Report |
December 10, 2004 |
December 14, 2006 |
May 15, 2007 |
|
Referendum Date |
May 15, 2005 |
N.A. |
October 10, 2007 |
|
# of Members |
161[ii] |
140 |
104[iii] |
|
Alternate
Members Selected[iv] |
0 |
4 |
0 |
|
Total Dropouts |
1 |
6 |
1 |
|
# of Political
Districts |
79 |
12 |
103 |
|
Members/District |
2 |
from 3 to 30 |
1 |
|
Members Selected
From Districts |
158 |
140 |
103 |
|
Members Selected at
Large |
2[v] |
0 |
0 |
|
Members Supporting
Final Recommendation |
95% |
114/127 |
84% |
|
Voters Supporting
Referendum |
57.7% |
N.A. |
36.9% |
|
Votes Required to
Pass Referendum |
60% |
N.A. |
60% |
|
Budget for Member
Deliberations[vi] |
$5.5 million |
€5.1 million |
$5.5 million |
|
Budget for
Marketing the Referendum |
$.5 million |
N.A. |
$6.8 million |
|
Total Government
Budget |
$6.0 million |
€5.1 million |
$12.3 million |
|
Jurisdiction |
Select Electoral System |
Select Electoral System |
Select Electoral System |
|
Formal Power |
Place referendum on ballot |
Issue report to parliament |
Place referendum on ballot |
|
Status Quo System |
Non-Proportional |
Party-Centered Proportional |
Non-Proportional |
|
Recommended
System |
Single Transferable Vote Proportional |
More Candidate-Centered Proportional |
Mixed Member Proportional |
|
Stratification
Criteria for Random Sample |
Gender, Age, District, Aboriginal |
Gender, Age, District |
Gender, Age, District, Aboriginal |
|
Population |
4.4 million |
16.3 million |
12.9 million |
|
Initial Sample Size |
23,034 |
50,000 |
123,489 |
|
Positive Responses |
1,715 |
4,000 |
7,033 |
|
% Initial Yield |
0.07 |
0.08 |
0.06 |
|
2nd
Round Sample Size (invited to attend information session) |
1,441 |
N.A. |
1,253 |
|
Number of
Information Sessions |
27 |
N.A. |
29 |
|
Positive Responses
After Informational Session |
914 |
1,700 |
N.A.[vii] |
|
Final Round Sample
Size |
160 |
140 |
103 |
[i]
A second, identical referendum: the first referendum failing by
such a close margin that the government placed the same
referendum on the ballot for the next election.
[ii]
Includes two native Americans (called "First Nation" people in
[iii]
Includes the chair of the citizens assembly.
[iv]
Two were selected for each
selected delegate as part of the final selection process.
But none of the delegates in
[v]
Only the aboriginal members
were selected at large.
[vi]
In units of country of
origin, not U.S. dollars.
[vii] The absence of this information in the 262 page official report summarizing the Ontario Citizens’ Assembly on Electoral Reform deserves note. The only discussion of this dropout rate is the observation: “Throughout the meetings, only a handful of people declined to enter their names.”
