An online experiment invites Coloradans to tackle the state's budget problems, then discuss their choices with people who may see things differently.
Colorado voters have some tough decisions to make about taxes and spending this election. But talking about those decisions with someone who disagrees with you doesn't have to turn into another political argument.
That's the idea behind an experiment that starts with a budget challenge and ends with an invitation to talk with other Coloradans about the choices they made.
The free online tool, Colorado Tradeoffs, asks people to decide three statewide ballot questions that affect the state budget, then figure out how to close a projected $1.6 billion shortfall.
It takes less than 10 minutes. After completing the challenge, users can sign up for a virtual conversation with others who have wrestled with the same decisions. The next session is 6:30 Tuesday, Oct. 27.
The idea isn't to win an argument. It's to understand why people make different choices.
"Debate is about winning. Deliberation is about weighing," said Chris Adams, developer of the simulation and founder of Weigh In, the Colorado-based public service company behind the technology.
"Whether anyone changes their mind or not, after sharing with others and learning from them, people can be much more confident about where they end up."
The Mountain-Ear is one of more than two dozen news outlets across Colorado offering Colorado Tradeoffs to their audiences, part of a statewide collaboration led by the nonprofit Colorado News Collaborative (COLab), the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs and Weigh In.
More than 8,000 Coloradans have engaged with the project's voter tools. And balancing Colorado's budget has proven difficult: Only about one in 13 people who tried the simulation managed to close the gap.
The simulation shows how people approach the state's financial challenges. But Adams says the numbers leave out something important.
"A simulation tells you what people chose; a conversation tells you why," he said. "...A conversation helps you understand why others make different choices."
One person might prioritize education funding. Another might want to avoid tax increases. Both face the same budget constraints but arrive at different solutions.
"Voting at its best is an expression of each person's own values. It is a private act," Adams said. "But sharing your reasoning with another person requires more careful thinking."
Research from Stanford University's Deliberative Democracy Lab suggests structured conversations among people with differing political views can reduce polarization and sometimes change opinions. The Colorado experiment puts that approach to work online, allowing people from across the state to participate.
The experiment also raises a broader question: Could local news organizations help create spaces where people come together to discuss difficult community issues?
Adams thinks so.
"As our society has evolved and in some ways splintered, local news has a latent super power: to bring us together around facts and a chance to talk about our values," he said.
For COLab and its news partners, the experiment is part of an effort to make local journalism more useful — not just explaining complicated issues, but helping people engage with them.
And agreement isn't necessarily the goal. Understanding why someone else made a different choice may be valuable enough.
Want to join the conversation? Complete the free Colorado Tradeoffs challenge. At the end, you can sign up for an optional online discussion with other Coloradans. The next session is 6:30 Tuesday, Oct. 27.
The Mountain-Ear participates in the nonprofit Colorado News Collaborative.
