NextGen Roundtable: Deliberation as a Design Choice for First-Time Voters

The Close Up Foundation, in partnership with the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab, Generation Lab, and the Hoover Institution's Center for Revitalizing American Institutions, convened NextGen Roundtable: Decision 2026, a four-day deliberative forum that brought 400 first-time voters to Washington, DC, ahead of the midterm elections. Selected to reflect the country's demographic, geographic, and ideological diversity, participants deliberated—not debated—policy questions on artificial intelligence, immigration, democracy, and America's global role in small, moderated groups. Building on the America in One Room model, the forum drew on evidence that structured deliberation can increase civic knowledge, reduce polarization, and strengthen trust across differences. A closing exercise using the Civic Profile tool encouraged students to situate their civic values against national benchmarks and enduring tensions such as liberty versus equality, rather than party labels. For the NCDD network, the event offers a practical, evidence-based model for youth deliberation that demonstrates how disagreement and mutual respect can coexist.

---

---

The inaugural NextGen Roundtable: Decision 2026 gathered 400 first-time voters in Washington, DC from July 8 through 11, selected to mirror the demographic, geographic, and ideological diversity of the country. The Close Up Foundation hosted the event in partnership with the Stanford Deliberative Democracy Lab, Generation Lab, and the Hoover Institution's Center for Revitalizing American Institutions. The organizing distinction was deliberate and worth stating plainly: participants deliberated rather than debated. Over four days they listened, weighed competing arguments, consulted experts, and worked through contested questions in small, moderated groups, on topics including artificial intelligence, immigration, democracy, elections, and America's role in the world. The format is a youth-focused application of the America in One Room approach, which rests on a growing body of evidence that structured deliberation can strengthen civic knowledge, reduce polarization, and build trust across differences rather than reward the loudest voices.

​The reported outcomes track what deliberative practitioners tend to look for, and are worth reading with appropriate caution given that participants self-selected into a civic program and described their own experiences afterward. Several students said the format changed how they related to people they disagreed with, less by resolving disagreement than by making genuine conversation possible when the goal shifted from winning to understanding. Participants described moving past stereotypes by slowing the conversation down and examining evidence together, and coming away more confident that Americans can hold difficult conversations constructively when the structure and expectations support it. That last point is the substantive claim underneath the anecdotes. The design, not the goodwill of the participants alone, is what made the difference, which is precisely the premise deliberative methods are built on. Whether these shifts persist beyond the event is a separate question the coverage does not answer, and one the field continues to study.

A closing activity used the Civic Profile, a tool developed by the Center for Revitalizing American Institutions' Working Group on Civics and American Citizenship, to give the deliberative work a reflective counterpart. Rather than classifying students by political ideology, the instrument asked them to examine their own civic knowledge, behaviors, and values, and to locate themselves against enduring tensions that cut across party lines, such as liberty and equality, individualism and community, and tradition and change. Students then compared their individual results and the cohort's collective profile to national benchmarks. The design choice is the interesting part. By mapping difference onto durable civic tensions instead of partisan labels, the tool surfaces disagreements that party identity obscures, including differences among people whose views look similar on the surface. That reframing complements the deliberative sessions and reinforces a working principle familiar to this network: productive dialogue across difference depends on understanding both oneself and others. For NCDD members designing youth engagement or deliberative programming, NextGen Roundtable offers a documented, well-partnered model worth studying. Read the full account at https://www.hoover.org/news/nextgen-roundtable-decision-2026-demonstrates-promise-deliberative-democracy.