Slashdot Mirror
Learn About Political Campaigning on the Internet
This week's Slashdot interview guest, Ben Green, is director of Internet operations for Al Gore's presidential campaign. He's charged with making the algore2000 Web site as big, popular, and efficient as possible. Political campaigning on the Internet is new and still rather experimental in many ways. The point of this interview is not to boost (or diss) Al Gore or any other candidate, but to learn about the process of using the Internet as a political tool, which is of more long-term importance than any single election. One question per post, please. The complete Q&A session is scheduled to appear Friday.
Algore2000 is a good site. I'm sure there was countless hours of thought put into each and every detail, especially the "agenda" page. That page in particular is a work of persuasive art, right down to the picture of Al with a pair of cops (tough on crime), and the (over)use of red, white and blue. The list of catch phrases is an especially nice touch; who could possibly NOT support "Saving Our Schools," "Fighting for America's Seniors" and "Improving Health Care," right?
My question for you, sir, has to be this: Why does algore2000.com seem to think I'm a fool? Am I supposed to be genuinely impressed by the load of press releases and speaches? I hate to break the news to you, but I want to see real content, NOT glazed over executive summaries. Take for instance something VERY relevant to me as a college student - the link from the front page about Al's Plan to Make College More Affordable. It leads here. The extent of the "details" stated is this:
"Gore announced new details of his National Tuition Savings Program, which is designed to help families save for college. The plan allows families to invest funds in an account where their money will be protected from inflation and can be withdrawn to pay for higher education expenses tax-free. The plan will also guarantee the cost of college tuition at any participating college or university in the country."
The rest of the press release is all fluff. No mention of whether this is limited to public or private universities, 2 or 4 year degrees, graduate school, part or full time study, etc. And this is the *basic* stuff. I'm also interested in why this would be a better option than, say, investing in short-term CD's.
That's just ONE example from the many I could have chosen. Nearly all the "content" of algore2000.com is fluff. And shots at Bill Bradley. The simple fact is this does not impress me. Actually, since this site represents Al Gore, I'm inclined to believe Al relatively clueless - if he wasn't, surely he'd tell us HOW he plans to fund his proposed programs, tax cuts, etc. Any politician can CLAIM to support any number of things. Algore2000 picks popular issues, and loads the wording of them such that ANYONE would be nearly forced to agree. Come on, who on earth DOESN'T support "A better educational system?"
What I could like to see from algore2000.com, as well as EVERY OTHER CANDIDATE is DETAILS. I want to know HOW you plan to provide a tax cut - will this come at the expense of the defense budget? Money always comes from somewhere; I want to know what has to be CUT to lower taxes. And don't tell me "unnecessary pork" or some trite answer. I want to see numbers.
And I want a big ass chart, with a column for every candidate, and a row for every issue. "Do you support abortion as it currently stands? y/n" "Do you support the abolition of legal abortion under all circumstances? y/n" "Do you support abortion under limited circumstances? If so, when?" Things like that. REAL questions. Some more: "Do you support the reverse engineering of software for porting and compatibility purposes?" "Do you support CDA in its current form?" And more of the like. I don't want to read "Al Gore supports technology and innovation" - I want to read HOW he supports them.
Simply put, algore2000.com seems to play to the lowest common denominator - the average american, who sadly enough has little interest in politics, and little technical knowledge. I think this is a mistake; this audience doesn't read political advocacy web sites on a wide basis. You'd do better to use the web site to provide details and elaborate on Al's statements and ideas rather than just rehash them.
One more side note: I followed Jesse Ventura's campaign slightly - I don't know his stance on most of the issues. I dont live in Minnesota, so I didn't take the time to research him. What I DO know is that I was very impressed when a reporter asked him if he supported some obscure bill I'd never heard of. Ventura replied something like "Well, to be honest, I'm not familiar with that at all. I'm not gonna lie to you; I don't know everything, or have all the answers you wanna hear. But I learn fast; I'll read up on it." When can we expect Al Gore to say something like THAT?
--
--
Just lurking, thanks!
Most of the political web sites I've seen out there are what I refer to in the web development industry as "brochure sites". They tend not to be terribly interactive, and mostly serve as an online brochure.
What can you do with a political site that really enhances your ability to get the message out there?
sigs are a waste of space
Linking to another sites is an essential feature of the Web.
:), supported campaigns)?
Would you recommend linking to another sites from your boss' site?
If yes, what kind of sites (supporters, other candidates, ~independent~ media, Slashdot
Would you object to being linked from another sites, even from opponents?
--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu
In an increasingly wired society rumors and myths propagate at incredible speeds - how do you diffuse rumors and myths. For example, if I start a rumor that Mr. Gore said he "fathered linus torvalds" - how do you diffuse that? Rumors and myths often come about as a minor distortion of the truth which then goes through the "telephone game". How do you keep the public informed about what a candidate /really/ thinks, as opposed to what other people think the candidate thinks?
Given that the internet allows users to seek out and verify information for themselves to a much greater extent than previously possible, will this affect the typical lying and obfuscation of political campaigns? That is, I can retrieve information about Gore's campaign and see that in Bumfucht, Idaho he promised a group of veterans that he would increase spending on national offense, while three days later in Nowhere, Ohio, he swore up and down to a local Rotary Club that he would eliminate wasteful military spending.
Will the increased access to information force politicians to actually have consistent stances, or will the politicians fail to wise up, treat everything as "business as usual", and continue alienating a large portion of the population through pervasive pandering, mushy beliefs that depend on who they're talking to, and outright lies?
--
Michael Sims-michael at slashdot.org
According to netcraft, algore2000 is running Linux and Apache. What were the reasons for choosing that platform, and were they mainly technical, or political? Was this your initial choice, or did you change the platform at some point?
The current political candidate sites seem to be little more than political rhetoric and volunteer information. Are there any plans to treat the website differently than a brodcast medium? I mean, including interactivity, such as message areas for open discussions, polling booths to get a feel for what people are really interested in. And also perhaps for offering large amounts of data about a candidate's past actions in government, such as voting records (and perhaps reasons for the vote).
---
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."