Congressional Management Foundation | Principle 4: Senators and Representatives should strive to engage with a diverse sample of their constituents, not just those who vote for them or seek to influence them.

This is part of a series from our latest report, The Future of Citizen Engagement: Rebuilding the Democratic Dialogue. Over the next few weeks, check back regularly for new posts outlining the principles and featuring accompanying resources, articles, and plans to support it.

Too much of a Member’s congressional calendar and staffers’ workloads are determined by people who seek them out. For example, associations and nonprofits organize tens of thousands of Americans to request meetings, both virtual and in-person, with their Senators and Representatives. They also organize advocacy campaigns and lobbying efforts to which staff are reactive. While this type of engagement is worthy and necessary, if Members of Congress rely primarily on engagement to which they and their staffs are reactive, they are restricting their contact to those who have the capacity and the will to engage.

In our 2021 report The Future of Citizen Engagement: Rebuilding the Democratic Dialogue, we propose ten principles for modernizing and improving the relationship between Congress and the People. All ten will require changes in the constituent engagement culture and practices in both Congress and the organizations that help facilitate grassroots advocacy. The fourth principle is: Senators and Representatives should strive to engage with a diverse sample of their constituents, not just those who vote for them or seek to influence them.

When neither Congress nor the organizations who facilitate advocacy take pains to include the disengaged and under-represented, or when Senators and Representatives focus most on the needs and concerns of those who offer political advantage rather than striving to truly understand the diverse range of needs and views among constituents, they leave voices out. Members of Congress have a moral duty to represent and include all their constituents, not just those who have the means to proactively engage. One way to do this is through deliberative forums, which engage a random sample of constituents—often through lottery—to engage on matters of public policy. The OECD has conducted extensive research on deliberative forums and has found many benefits to public officials, government, and the public.

Most of the forums used by Members of Congress, like town hall meetings, are participatory, not deliberative. Rather than inviting a random sample of constituents to participate, they engage whoever is willing and able to attend. As a result, they are seldom representative of the entire constituency. They mostly include those who are the greatest supporters or detractors of the Senator or Representative and those who are most engaged. In their 2020 report Innovative Citizen Participation and New Democratic Institutions: Catching the Deliberative Wave,the OECD studied trends in nearly 300 representative deliberative processes conducted throughout the world to understand the options, benefits, and limitations of these activities. Deliberative forums combine the benefits of both dialogue and debate to create a process for representative samples of constituents to carefully evaluate research and opinions on a subject and to collectively reach a recommendation. These forums provide several policymaking benefits that work towards the goal of strengthening our democratic institutions, including the following, which are excerpts from the OECD report:

Enhanced public trust in government. “People are more likely to trust a decision that has been influenced by ordinary people than one made solely by government or behind closed doors. Trust also works two ways. For governments to engender trust among the public, they must in turn also trust the public to be more directly involved in decision making. It can also demonstrate to citizens the difficulty of taking collective decisions and improve their sense of collective democratic life.”
Better policy outcomes. “Deliberative processes create the spaces for learning, deliberation, and the development of informed recommendations, which are of greater use to policy and decision makers. They can also tap into local knowledge and lived experience of an issue. While deliberative processes are not the only way of achieving this aim, due to the use of random sampling from which a representative selection is made, they involve a wide cross-section of society, thus painting a more holistic picture than can come from open participation processes that rely on self-selection.”
Greater legitimacy to make hard choices. “By convening a deliberative process, where a representative group of people are given the time and the resources to learn, deliberate with skilled facilitators, and collectively develop considered recommendations, politicians have created greater legitimacy to take those tough decisions. These processes help policy makers to better understand public priorities, and the values and reasons behind them, and to identify where consensus is and is not feasible. Evidence suggests that they are particularly useful in situations where there is a need to overcome political deadlock.”
Strengthen integrity and prevent corruption by ensuring no one can have undue influence on public policy decisions. “Key principles of deliberative good practice are that the process is transparent, visible, and provides an opportunity for all stakeholders to present to the participants. Participants’ identities are often protected until after the process is over to protect them from being targeted by interest groups. Presentations and all submissions should be made available to the public. The participants are given adequate time to weigh the evidence, deliberate, and come to a collective public judgement.”

Deliberation is also an effective tool for combating both disinformation and polarization. Providing people with accurate information with which to deliberate centers conversation around available facts instead of unconfirmed claims. Giving constituents an opportunity to discuss the thoughts and ideas of individuals with diverse backgrounds and experiences helps break down barriers between groups and encourage civil discourse. Counteracting the cultural divisions that are present in our communities and focusing discussions on facts are integral steps in dismantling the increasing polarization in our politics.

Deliberative processes differ from traditional political participation in that each constituent has equal potential to participate, not just those who proactively choose to do so. New innovations in virtual meetings and gatherings now make citizen deliberation more accessible than ever before. Constituents who would otherwise not have the time or capability to travel away from their homes can now participate online. As CMF has previously highlighted, well-organized virtual Deliberative Town Hall meetings have been used to great effect during the COVID-19 pandemic. These same virtual meeting settings allow the Member to connect with constituents without needing to leave Washington.

For nearly two decades, CMF has partnered with political scientists through the Connecting to Congress project to demonstrate the value of Deliberative Virtual Town Hall meetings with constituents. This work has proven how Senators and Representatives can create inclusive, constructive forums that lead participants to consider them accessible and fair, increase their trust in the Member’s judgement, and increase their approval ratings, even on some of the toughest issues Congress is grappling with. CMF has a report on it, and a toolkit for conducting deliberative town hall meetings. The research even led to an important book entitled Politics with the People: Building a Directly Representative Democracy.

It is now easier than ever before for Members to connect directly with their constituents. Embracing new innovations and modes of constituent participation will be key in building strong relationships. However, whether the chosen setting is virtual or a physical venue, if you want to conduct a deliberative process, heavy emphasis should be placed on ensuring participants are a microcosm of the whole constituency. An important way for Congress to help combat polarization and disinformation is to ensure everyone is represented at the table and that their opinions are being heard.

Actively seeking the thoughts, opinions, and recommendations of a representative sample of a Member’s constituency is an important way to represent the diversity of opinion found in their district/state. Rather than solely prioritizing responses to constituents who have the time and resources to reach out, Members should focus a substantial portion of their resources on seeking out the voices that are less often heard, including those who disagree with them. Deliberative processes provide avenues for such actions that are both adaptable to varying conditions and adequately inclusive of a diverse array of constituents. Acknowledging the great diversity of opinion that is present in every constituency is key in fostering trust between the people and the Member. Having constructive dialogue on contentious issues not only educates the general public but normalizes civil political discourse. Rebuilding trust in Congress must start one conversation at a time.

Principle into Practice:

Congress should explore and adopt methods of engagement that ensure the voices of all constituents are represented, not just those with access or knowledge of the process.
Members of Congress should reach out to the disengaged, less privileged, and those who disagree with them, and listen to what they have to say.
Members of Congress should be proactive in outreach and appearances, rather than purely reactive to invitations and requests.
Members of Congress should visit parts of the district or state whose views are often underrepresented or overlooked.
Members of Congress should encourage deliberation and discussion between constituents on important policy matters.

Additional Resources

CMF Research Assistant, Ian Chenoweth, co-authored this post. Ian is a junior at Valparaiso University majoring in political science with a concentration in public policy and administration, a minor in French, and a heavy interest in data analysis and visualization. After graduation Ian plans to pursue a master's degree in public policy.