Slashdot Mirror
Scott Reents, Online Political Activist
It's a presidential election year in the U.S. (in case you hadn't noticed), and this is the first presidential election in which the Internet is a major factor. Today's guest, Scott Reents, is president of The Democracy Project. Read this essay, A Citizen-Centric Internet , to see what Scott and his people are trying to achieve, then post your questions for him below. We'll forward 10 of the highest-moderated ones to him tomorrow, and will publish his answers here next week.
Think we can get Gore on slashdot for an Interview? Like we did with Metallica?
The answer is here. If distributed news and moderations sources like this proliferate, there will be no way to control information or spin information flow. If the internet continues it's decline into push media, there is no hope.
That depends on how it is implemented.
For instance, a binding non of the above might mean that all the candidates in that election are excluded while you itterate the election again with new candidates, which seems to be the way you envision it...
Or it might be that after some set number of wins by none of the above the office is suspended, and the government continues without anyone holding that office, either for some set number of terms or forever, again depending on implementation.
That's the exact same thing said about the election four years ago. Wouldn't that make it the first election the the Internet had a measurable influence upon? Clintion/Gore and the republican campaigns both went after the Internet populous with web sites, and raised issues that they believed mattered to us.
-buffy
Does Vice President Al Gore have an unfair advantage in the online campaign of the presidency since he invented the Internet? Will the FEC step in to level the playing field for G.W. Bush so he can compete online against Al Gore?
Absolutely. Since Gore wrote the specs on TCP/IP and was the main instigator of all the RFC's in existance he has a major advantage. Bush is probably going out and secretly hiring all the "SkR1p7 K1DDi3z" once he has them on their side he will have a more level playing field.
Bush probably wants the L0pht on his side as well being as they are top notch, and of course they wrote the one book that prevents the one father of the internet from sleeping at night.
;)
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
do you think the 'main-streaming' of political activism, combined with the splintering of historically 'left-wing' ideologies has caused credibility to be lost for activism in general? do you think that the ease of access and publication on the internet has lent itself to this loss of credibility, if it exists at all? it seems that the media, at least in certain markets, has turned a deaf or apathetic ear towards any type of political activism that is not clearly mainstream. do you think the internet, and activism in general, can turn this around?
thanks.
cvoid - satellites are cool
And the robot says: "In the begining was man. Man created all things. Man, with his infinite skill, created machines
IMHO, you're looking at it wrong. The real power of the Net isn't just that you can go to some web site and hear their prepackaged spiel. The real power is that you can talk to other people who share the same interests.
I talk (orally) to other people in real life. But the conversations are all bland. I'm not gonna talk politics with my co-workers, or the crazy lady I saw at Wienerschnitzel, or my friends. those conversations are more like, "Gee, it sure is hot today," or "Get away from me, crazy lady," or "let's rent a movie and eat pizza."
On the net, there's real discussion, because people who care about something can find each other. It can be done through websites that are not biased (e.g. affiliated with a candidate) or watered down (e.g. the television news shows that explore a candidate's soundbites "in depth" for 20 seconds).
The net can have an interesting effect on Ralph Nader's not because of his web site, but because of independent web logs, Usenet, etc.
It reminds me a lot of 'underground' music. By its very nature, you'll never see it on a "video" TV station, or hear it on the radio. If you are really dedicated or lucky, and live in the right place, you might find it in a club. But on the 'Net, you can find it a lot easier. For example, I think Heavy Metal (and I mean real metal, not that Korn crap) is making a comeback, and the 'Net has a lot to do with it.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
That is democracy! Democracy does not dictate that people make wise choices.
I see no evidence that the founding fathers wanted democracy. What we are supposed to have is a Republic, and many of the problems we are beginning to face is the direct result of too much democracy and too little leadership. Democracy is just about the worst form of government out. Democracy is just another word for Mob rule and no principles except for the transient desires of the masses.
Logic ... merely enables one to be wrong with authority. -- Doctor Who
I think the totally out of control dog is more akin to anarchist. When he settles down and starts marking his territory then the dog is a libertarian.
The "hacker culture" that the Net largely originated from had (and has) a strong libertarian undercurrent. Perhaps the influence of many of the net's founders and early adopters continues to be felt politically. Al Gore excepted, of course.
Repealing the Second Amendment and then passing laws that make bearing arms illegal would, in fact, make bearing arms illegal (by definition), entirely within the constitutional framework.
Of course this has nothing to do with one's right to bear arms, which exists whether or not the Constitution enumerates it, as you rightly point out. And if the Second Amendment (or any other in the BoR) were to be repealed, it would be an excellent idea to start exercising this right.
Hi "Bruce Perens.", how are you doing in troll-land?
Besides the name-jacking, you do make a good point. We don't know what will happen 10 years down the road. The fact that the internet gained in popularity in the past ten years has nothing to do with the next ten years. Cellular and WAP will come along, and may spend some time in the limelite, but for the most part computers will continue to exist in the same form plus a few appliances on the horizion.
The web-pad is one example of good tech. It will not be wireless when it comes out, but within a quarter, they should have that capability. And if AOL promotes and backs the tech, you will have massive inroads for vital portable tech.
Of course, the above has nothing to do with politics on the net, but rather politics of the net.
Lowmag.net
This is silly. Who cares if the west coasters vote or not. If you are ignorent enough to think your vote doesn't count then don't cast it. After all, it is a short line from "Why should I vote for a candidate that the TV predicts has already lost" to "Why should I vote for a candidate that isn't going to win"
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Me, I vote simply because it gives me the right to bitch about the government.
I know plenty of people who don't vote and bitch all the time. No one has hauled them away yet.
Call my cynical.
You are cynical.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Jello needs the work to... he lost a lawsuit for $200,000+ for mismanaging his band's back catalog.
Just the kind of guy we need to replace Bubba.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
While I agree that the Internet will look radically different than it does today, I think that the changes will magnify whatever effects the internet (or whatever the next thing is called) has on political content.
In general, a hundred years ago, politicans talked to "the public" will little targeted content. Ten or twenty years ago, politicans really began the perfecting of targeting their message to certain segments. I know of politicans who send one mailing to Harley riders and another to Caravan moms. The internet allows even finer granularity. The internet turns a 48-hour response time to an attack into a 48-minute response time. Whatever comes next is going to further this trend, not go backwards.
So that is the real question. Not "How does the Internet change the message," but rather, "How does the increased ability to communicate that the Internet gives politicians change their message?"
-sk
The best presidential candidate site taht follows all rules explained at Scott Reines site is this.
Others, particularly the things that most of us buy most of the time in modest quantities, are completely uninfluenced by the activities of the wealthy minority.
You mean stuff like cleaning products from proctor and gamble or long distance from At&t?
Voting none of the above is silly, IMHO. By not voiting you are just making the universe of voters that much smaller and thus increasing the effectiveness of the votes of every other idiot out there. Vote for a random candidate if you want to inject a little chaos into the system, but not voting does NOTHING to help. "Oh, look, low voter turn-out again. I guess nobody cares how I do my job."
--
+&x
My guess is that you're on a *nix box running Netscape, which doesn't always handle fonts correctly. Try putting your 100dpi fonts at the beginning of your font path when you're reading pages like this one and things should be a lot clearer.
Jeff
"Many political organizations' online brands are weak because they have a history of not being objective providers of information, but it is not too late to attempt to recast their brands."
[incredulous look] Come on! What do you expect? Republicans to start saying "Actually, the Democrats have some good ideas". Please explain why these ideas of yours are not total fantasy, as regards political party sites.
No wait, don't bother, I'm being rhetorical.
Female Prison Rape in NY
So, what part of my statement makes you think that I don't know what a militia is? The statement I made is a fact. Were you to leave out the first 4 words of the second amendment, you completely change the meaning of the amendment. I don't know what you were thinking when you read my statement, but it looks like you tried to see some sort of hidden meaning. There is no hidden meaning in my statement, no doublespeak, nor writing between the lines. Take it or leave it, it is a true statement.
-Adam
Marriage is love.
Love is blind.
Marriage is an institution.
Therefore, marriage is an institution for the blind.
If you really want to know what I think about the modern usage of the second amendment, go here. But this thread is completely off topic. Please send flames directly to me.
The internet could become the most democratizing force in human history. But it won't. You, me, and most of the rest of the /. types will actually use the 'net to gain unbiased information, but let's be realistic here. The masses are not like us. They wan't recipes and fancy applets that let them know if someone's trying to call them while they're connected (anyone else notice how quickly Telus's ad came out after Sprint's?). At best, we might beable to get some of them to read general news sights that aren't owned by the same people who own the TV news. Most people go to pages whose URL's they've marked down off TV or advertisments, which means that they never, ever see anything that isn't created by some company or another.
Intolerant people should be shot.
You don't see a difference between not knowing (and often not caring) and being certain of the negative case? I personally am agnostic, because I don't have any way of knowing, and science is far from complete. (Evolution in particular, does in fact have some pretty big holes)
Intolerant people should be shot.
You may not see it as such, but that is what it's meaning is. Kinda like the masses considering the word "ignorant" to mean "rude" rather than "lacking in knowledge". Someone who doesn't worship any gods in agnostic. I feel perfectly justified in saying the Christian God (I don't feel like being beligerant and insulting large numbers of people, so I'll actually spell the word properly) does not exist as well, presumably for the same reasons that you don't believe in invisible pink unicorns. However, I am not at all certain that there is no higher power of any sort; thus, I am agnostic, and not an atheist. Mainly because Creationism is the only other idea on the origins of man that I'm personally aware of. And I do believe that animals evolve, its the big leaps that I have doubts about.
Intolerant people should be shot.
True, but even with just five-word stances on the various "issues" I don't have any problem looking at the candidate that's closest to my beliefs (apparently), and say "I don't quite agree with that" I don't want a candidate who believes exactly what I do, (or I'd just try to run myself), I want one who tells me why he believes X and Y. I want one who can demonstrate intelligence and negotiating skill.
Intolerant people should be shot.
Journalistic ethic seems to have died with Perry White (of Superman fame).
Did it ever exist anywhere outside comics and similar idealistic fiction?
Intolerant people should be shot.
Bah. Irony is lost on you AC's isn't it?
Intolerant people should be shot.
I never can figure out why people can't understand the religous nature of atheism. Atheists believe that there is no god or other supernatural entity of any kind, much as Christians believe that there is a god that has some degree of supernatural influence on reality. Agnosticism is the lack of religion, not Atheism people.
Intolerant people should be shot.
I think you're giving the masses too much credit. People consider third parties a wasted vote because they believe that no one else is going to vote for the non-Rep/non-Dem candidate, so they shouldn't either. It's similar to the prisoner's dilemma.
And, no, third party candidates wouldn't be any better. The one's who aren't half (or more) nuts, are too naive to play at politics. They won't even try to deal for at least some of what they want, and will end up with nothing. (Hey, look, more game theory!)
Intolerant people should be shot.
One of the many datasheets that I've always wanted to see is a rating of each of the voting issues identifying which corporations they benefit. I would really enjoy a cross-reference between that and each politicians' voting record and campaign funding to generate a "corporate lackey index".
The question I have is: What do you think needs to happen before this kind of thing can come into existance, and what other data-tools do you feel will be valuable and possible for the future citizens on the net.
Mythological Beast
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
Although more people from every age group are getting online every day, wouldn't online voting only really appeal to those of the 'slacker' generation, age 25 and under? What steps are you taking (candidates, too) to attract those who aren't as 'Net savvy? Most polls tend to show that the Baby Boomers and beyond wouldn't vote online even if they could.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
Not to 'me too', but damn straight. Honestly, what kind of a fucking choice is George Bush or Al Gore? Neither are going to stand up for any ideals when in office, and either will say or do anything to get elected. George Bush has gone from NRA advocate to yodeling about 'sensible gun laws'. Al Gore sung the praises of the Kyoto emissions control conference and then quietly dropped all environmental issues off his agenda. They're both evil. And neither of them will actually wield any power. Hooray for plutocracies. Hooray for puppets.
Wah!
Is it just a co-incidence that the inventor of ;)
the internet - Al Gore - is running for President
in the first election in which the internet is
a major factor?
uh huh...Yeah...right.
/. reader might decide who to vote for because of impressions of web-savviness, but then, the number of Oprah viewers in Rhode Island likely outweighs /. in terms of voting strengh.
Even ignoring the fact that I heard that same line in both 1998 and 1996, it is simply wrong. Web-pages for candidates are afterthoughts. Add-ons. They are done because the candidates don't want to seem techno-illiterate. But they won't change a damn thing. Nothing on a website is going to change the result of the elections. And the candidates know this, which is why the number of dollars spent on television advertising will likely outweight the number of dollars spent on political efforts on the web by a factor of a thousand.
We tend to get insular, thinking that because the internet is a large part of our world, that it must therefore be a large part of the world in general. Yeah, a
The cake is a pie
Who is going to win ??
The one with the better page ?
The one who has more hits ?
Or the one who has more links ??
Without addressing your overall question (the internet making a difference in politics) I have to take issue with one of your underlying assumptions: that Ralph Nader is a relatively unknown candidate. If one accepts that assumption, the failure of such a candidate to get more than 4-5% of the vote could be seen as an indication that the Internet cannot make a difference for lesser known candidates.
I would wager that the name Ralph Nader had higher name ID than any of the candidates for President this year, except the Vice-President (for obvious reasons), and GW Bush (because of his fathers name). He certainly had more name ID than McCain prior to the primary campaign season.
Since name ID is the holy grail for which most campaign media money is spent, Nader actually starts out with a fair advantage. One should look for other reasons for his lagging in the polls: 1) representing a third party and therefore taken less seriously by the electorate, 2) General disagreement with his platform, 3) Personal dislike of the candidate.
These are all factors that can affect performance, and the Internet may not be a help (or even a hinderance) in overcoming them.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal...
....for the election in 1998. There are two major problems with that scheme:
:)
1. The polls in the West coast close at 4pm.
2. Saskatchewan doesn't have Daylight Savings Time, so their polls closed an hour later then the rest of the country. Stupid it was.
A much better solution is to simple not disclose the election results until after all of the votes have been counted - say, at 6AM the next morning. But, then the pundits wouldn't get to talk about the results as they come in, so that would never be allowed to happen
Is this post not nifty? Sluggy Freelance. Worshi
You mean democracy, as in the old Greek days? Where all men gathered at the "agora" (marketplace) to let their voices be heard? /. ;)
To me, this seems to be exactly the meaning of The Democracy Project. Democracy, in its purest classical meaning, was impossible because you can't have everybody at one place. The mob needs to be represented by a small number of people. The Internet, however, is a place where just anybody in a no-matter-what-sized community can stand up and shout his opinion. If his/her opinion is agreed upon, it gets moderated up, just like here on
IMHO, a republic is just a practically more or less usable implementation of a democracy. If politicians strive to hear the opinion of the people they represent, they should be very interested in the Internet as a massa medium. The only problem is, where to start. Will TDP be accepted as an objective forum? Are politicians really willing to join a public forum? (Which is often time waste, because opinions tend to repeat on forums) TDP is a great idea, but I yet have to see it work out.
Last: this is again a U.S. oriented article. There's much PR blah on the Quorum site. Living in The Netherlands, I don't know similar political forums. At our elections a few years ago, the only highly visited sites were Voting Wizards - you do a quiz and the computer tells you which party to vote on. It seems like most of the mob isn't interested in politics. However, our Queen Beatrix is really popular here...
Does Vice President Al Gore have an unfair advantage in the online campaign of the presidency since he invented the Internet? Will the FEC step in to level the playing field for G.W. Bush so he can compete online against Al Gore?
Strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.
If a voter gives their feedback, the only way for it to have any impact is for your organization to verify that (a) they are qualified to vote (age, citizenship, etc) and (b) they live within one of the political jurisdictions which you are targeting.
Yet, if you know this infomation *and* you know what their political opinions are, then your databases will become a prized target for system crackers. What type of security processes do you have in place to insure that a system cracker can't tap your database and post everyone's name & vote elsewhere on the Internet?
The Operational Plan posted on your website states that you're looking for $25 million dollars of funding for the year 2000. That's a lot of money, especially considering that $21.8 million of it is to be spent on marketing and only $1.8 million is to be spent on technology. Two questions for you...
(1.) There are a lot of websites that have burned through multi-million dollar marketing budgets and ended up empty handed. Why do you think you can build a recognizable brand by simply throwing a big marketing budget at it, when so many others have failed using that exact same approach?
(2.) It seems that creating an organization which needs $25 million dollars in donations every year to survive is rather unrealistic. Since your organization is totally dependent on contributions, what is your organization going to do to fund itself next year - when there is no election to generate interest in what you're doing?
Oh man
If people are idiots, what are you doing to educate them? Why are they idiots? Why are they easily brainwashed?
Many people are unhappy with the two major parties. It is my belief that third-party candidates are avoided because people believe that the candidates would not be able to work with a congress full of demos and repubs. I must also acknowledge the lack of advertising for third party candidates as well. And are you positive that third party candidates would really be better? What makes you think a third party candidate would adhere to his/her platform any more than a demo or repub?(just a hunch?)
$var = <STDIN>
$var =~ s/\\$//;
this is slashchomp
Read Jim Bell's essay? What do you think?
Bukvich
Why expect a candidate's site to be objective?
Why not expect candidates to provide interviews to neutral or even hostile sites? I suspect the "invcentor of the internet" would do better than the son of the guy who lost 12 years ago on Slashdot. Either would probably be neatly surpassed by Nader, of course, but we'll never know.
Ed Craig "Who cares what you think?" George W. Bush, 4th of July 2001
Nope... The United States is a plutocracy. If you really think your vote counts, you're fooling yourself.
Me, I vote simply because it gives me the right to bitch about the government. I don't really believe my voice counts for all that much. Call my cynical.
Thanks... hehe
I'm with you there. I'll be voting Liberterian also, probably Harry Browne.
I'm guilty of acting like an old churchwoman then. If someone around me starts bitching about a particular law or elected official my immediate question is, "Did you vote?" If you don't at least participate in the election process (even if the system is flawed), then you get the government you deserve, IMHO.
What are you doing to encourage technology oriented people (boys are girls that read slashdot...) to vote, and organize in various politcal action commitee's etc?
Since politicians are never going to do what you want them to, e.g. put on their web sites data that contradict their position, doesn't it make more sense to promote programs such as Third Voice, which let the users puncture fluff and spin at the source? That seems to me to be real user-centered politics! Just imagine the TV equivalent--what if on TV while Clinton was giving a speech you were to see right there "LIE," "SPIN," "AD HOMINEM," "NON SEQUITUR," "IRRELEVANT," "MISLEADING," etc. flashing on the screen with links to sources that proved that what was being said was bogus.
With the recent debut of internet-based campaigning, weak as it may be, and the ongoing controversy with mp3.com and Napster, do you believe the stronger platform in the presidential race will be that of policing the internet against pornography and pirating, or of spreading the technology, access, and ideology of the internet to those who may not have had any access before?
"I'm not even supposed to BE here today!"
Amen! Tell it Brother!
It's nice to see someone with a clue out there.
Perhaps this is the point, but creating a user-driven forum for discussing election issues won't do the majority of voters any good until we change the way the political system works.
Pre-Reagan, elections were all about party allegiance. Post-Reagan, as parties have drifted toward the center, they have been more about image (encouraged by burgeoning media coverage) and hotbutton issues like abortion. The one thing elections have never been about for most people is an objective evaluation of the candidates on all the issues, side-by-side, point-by-point. While it probably should be that way (the Democracy Project obviously wishes it so), it cannot for several reasons:
(1) People are on the whole impressionable, gullible and lazy, so they can be relied on neither to seek out objective criteria, nor to understand or take the time to evaluate them if they did.
(2) Most issues are quite complex, and require a lot of context and background knowledge. Take free trade: even an Econ 101 level discussion of comparative advantage or the lump-of-labor fallacy will cause most people's eyes to glaze over. So they leave the hard details of most issues to the politicians, and vote for them because, for instance, that person "cares about us, and won't let our jobs go overseas". Try an experiment: stop 10 people on the street, and ask them what Gore or Bush's position on free trade is.
(3) Politicians win elections by trying to be all things to all people. This is impossible if they take concrete positions, so they make vague promises that everyone would agree to (pro-education, create more jobs, etc) and avoid specifics whenever possible, relying on (1). So the current system gives them no incentive to devise a user-centered site where actual issues are discussed and positions taken.
This is all depressing, of course, but it seems to me that before you even have a chance to bootstrap voters into a world of active participation and ideal rational choice, you have to first dismantle the two-party, media-driven system that causes them to vote the way they do now.
hey..im a geek who loves :)
:)
his cryptic ui. and no,
you havent been in my pants
lately
I would like to know how democratic you feel that the current political system in the USA really is. Please take into account that only some 25% of the electorate votes, that they are generally middle to upper class. Also include that most voters allow representatives to maintain no amount of accountability, re-electing them although they have not fulfilled any of the goals or values from their platform. Another notable mention is the fact that there are really only two allowed parties (the others, such as the Green Party, are marginalized), both of which are business parties, thereby severly narrowing the political spectrum. There is also an interesting aspect to American Life; a Gallup once concluded that over 85% of Americans believe that corporations have too much control over their lives and government. One last thing I'd like you to note while forming your response is that it is an axiom, or common knowledge, that most people indeed vote _against_ someone, not _for_ someone.
Please take your time in addressing each issue mentioned above. I feel that they are extremely important questions that each person who wishes to help spread 'democracy' should ask of themselves. What are they going to do about the current top-down control (the people are the dis/misinformed mob, the 'leaders' make the decisions and the mob blindly follows) in this country? How would you bring about bottom-up control (the people making the decisions, the 'leaders' merely enacting/enforcing them)? Bottom-up control is the kind of Democracy that is the real defintion of the word, the kind imagined by Thomas Jeffereson, Adam Smith and many other 'forefathers'. Today, unfortunately, there is a different definition of democracy, and I hope that you can help us see which one you prefer.
Thank you very much for addressing this line by line. We appreciate it very much.
tcd004
You know where this Link goes.
The traditional justifications for a republic over a pure democracy are as follows:
a. A full democracy is impractical. Getting everyone to vote on something in time of crisis is impossible.
b. Elected representatives tend to be smarter than the constituents.
c. Elected representatives, being people of higher character, will make better decisions than an inflamed populace.
All of these points are no longer valid.
A real democracy is possible because of the Internet.
Elected representatives are not smarter than their consitutients, in any technologically savvy society. Most representatives are lawyers, and, as such, are not even qualified to make decisions about high technology fields such as computers, genetics, or even modern war fighting. You can tell that this is true because of all the stupid laws today's republics are making.
Elected representatives do make impassioned, stupid decisions. The involvement of the United States in Kosovo was arguably one of those.
A republic was a good thing for a country consisting of people with no better than a high school education. But now it is obsolete. The lawyers in Congress are not better qualified to make decisions about the country than an average engineer, and certainly have shown themselves to not have better character.
The best way to reform Congress is to get rid of it. Put the people in charge.
This is my sig.
Do the candidates (or sitting legislators) ever jump in and discuss the issues? Those are great resources, but the essay seemed to be directed at political entities--parties, candidates, coalitions--the sort of things your E-Democracy site links to.
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
And therein lies the problem. Political organizations do not want to be 'shaped' but prefer to be the ones doing the shaping. How would such a site, with online discussion and collaborative filtering, avoid the criticism of being 'poll' driven?
How do you propose our political leaders allow their positions to be influenced without appearing to be vacilating on issues, or without compromising their own convictions?
Additionally, those of us who have been online long enough know that, yes, there is a great deal of information on the net, but there is also a great deal of misinformation. You say that such a site allows the best ideas to rise to the top. Many online discussions, moderated or not, often end up being nothing more than pooled ignorance rather than shared wisdom. How would an organization keep their die-hard supporters from moderating contrary positions into oblivion (assuming the die-hards would likely outnumber the casual observers and information seekers), and how would you motivate such an organization to do so?
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
I just don't see the word 'atheist' as meaning 'someone who is certain there is no god.' To me it's someone who doesn't worship any gods.
Are you also agnostic on the issue of Santa Claus? You have no way of knowing that Santa does not exist. I feel perfectly justified in saying that the Xian God does not exist, even though I am not 100.00% certain. Same goes for leprechauns, satrys, and invisible pink unicorns.
Why do you think that the question of whether or not animals evolve has anything to do with whether or not there is a god?
--
share and enjoy
ik, ik, ihbt. But anyway, I just have to vent for half a second. How the heck is it "insane" to not participate in any theistic religion? It is insanity that I don't have an invisible friend named Jesus? Should I be committed because I *don't* hear voices? Because I don't take orders from your magical deity?
Sigh, I guess I'm just not a "decent" person. Everyone knows all decent people follow that one religion. You know, the One True one.
--
share and enjoy
Agnostic simply means "not knowing," ie someone who says that they can't be sure whether or not there is a God. I personally dislike this term, it sounds like an apologist, although I suppose I see how it could be substituted for atheist a lot of the time.
--
share and enjoy
I'll reiterate; I like my internet politically neutral. You can have your internet any way that you like.
Jello Biafra, Jello Biafra!!!</chanting>
I modded the Troll Investigation and I got
Actually, I believe that candidates do not provide detailed platform statements or policy plans via the web (or any other medium) because we as a people lack the attention span necessary to listen, except when our emotional buttons are being pushed. Real example: a candidate for the office of "Registrar of Deeds" here in my hometown spent more time talking about his position on abortion, which he would never have any say about even if elected, than he did about anything actually related to position he was running for. Seems stupid, until you realize that be generating a lot of patently absurd controversy, he got face time on the local news every night for two weeks.
Never try to teach a pig to sing; it's a waste of your time and it irritates the pig.
...our Jr. pr0n is cumming up...
Typical.
Speaking of Squirrels - this helps answer your question:
A Wired Agora - Minneapolis, Citizen Participation, the Internet and Squirrels - Article, Presentation, Audio
And: Start an Online Commons
The lesson - recruit an audience with influence and power and the content can be greatly improved because it now matters in a political sense. When it comes to political exchange, who you are talking to is more important than what people have to say. What average citizen will NOT waste their time talking politics online if they think no one who can do anything about their concerns is listening. Something I have learned in over 8 years of direct experience in this arena.
Cheers,
Steven Clift
Democracies Online Newswire
http://www.publicus.net http://www.opengroups.org
I'll take direct democracy over representative government any day of the week. With direct democracy, I ensure that my vote actually counts and I can't be backstabbed by an unfaithful "representative" who doesn't implement his campaign promises.
The problem with representative democracy is that it is simply selecting your master. Representatives (generally rich and powerful) often pass laws and govern in their own interests (surprise, surprise) instead of the interest of the people they are supposed to represent. It hardly even matters who the representative is, once they are in power they do pretty much the same thing. That's probably why about half of Americans don't bother to vote, they know it doesn't make any significant difference in their lives. Regardless of the representative, once they are in power they tend to do things like vote themselves obscene pay raises, declare wars which they don't have to fight (often to protect their overseas investments) and pass various laws in the interests of their financial benefactors and friends. Representative "democracy" is a poor system of government for this day and age, the ancient Greeks had it right (minus the sexism and slavery). Now we just have to write(not so hard) and implement (tricky) the software to get real democracy to work in the 21st century...
However, if Al Gore(or any other politician) set up a moderated forum like this one, I would be far more likely to visit.
What do you think of the idea of using the slashcode as a basis for an interactive political site?
No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?
lib.er.tar.i.an \.lib-*r-'ter-e--*n\ \-e--*-.niz-*m\ n 1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will 2: one who upholds the principles of liberty esp. of thought and action - libertarian aj
- Xiombarg
Hypocrisy is the Vaseline of social intercourse. -- R. Heinlein
- Xiombarg
Hypocrisy is the Vaseline of social intercourse. -- R. Heinlein
By the way, I think your essay make a grave mistake in not analyzing the difference between a campaign website and the website of a present office holder.
This is another view of the world.
The United States has officially been an Elective Republic of the people for roughly over 20 years. Democracy is a failure because it allows too much power to minorities and allows them to dictate unto the majority of citizens. Like the subject says, you are in the wrong country. The remaining Demococrats in the United States of America are all immoral heathenistic porno-supporting freaks of mother nature and we are finishing-up in slaughtering them. My question, "Why don't you choose Europe as your headquarters? Your socialistic form of Democracy coupled with a bunch of Europeans is a great match." There is no honor in a modern-day democrat. Hence, applying terminology such as "Democracy" has already cursed your name. BTW, I checked your guestbook. You have a great message filter! Not one bad thing has been said about your non-profit company! Good riddens.
without prejudice
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Nope. Welcome to the anarchical nature of the international system. Where there is no governing body, each actor shall act in their own best interest. If that means that some countries might try and exercise laws beyond their control, they're welcome to try it, however, no country is required to respect their authority. Until there is an international internet authority (a scary thing, perhaps?) there will be no real laws applied to cross-border traffic that is worldwide.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
Why don't we do this? Why not compose a list of questions Slashdot interview style, for the presidential candidates, and see how many, if any of them will answer?
However insignificant any of our individual votes may be, the votes of all the Slashdot readers combined (not that I expect /.ers to agree on anything) would carry substantial weight.
Also, I for one would love to hear the technological views of any candidate. You can tell a lot about a man and how open-minded he is, by his views on matters such as DeCSS, Napster, and Gnutella, as well as views on copyright laws, patents, and IP.
And Finally, I have no interest in living under Democratic rule, and would prefer a Republic as (most of) our founding fathers intended. The popular vote is not always the correct one, as I would suspect after reading the Hellmouth posts, most of us are aware.
-Tommy
------
"I do not think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday."
"I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
Yes, the law is constructed to show no favors to any party (read persons). That was one of the initial conditions of the first moment at the Big Bang. Of course, now that we are 11-12 Bil/Yrs and counting, that is no longer true and fairness once having been an initial condition is so distorted that it cannot be found either on our planet or in this galactic quadrant.here is fairness and how can it be found, read Fredrick Bastiat's The Law (Op.cit.)
How is it that third-party candidates are viewed by the public as "throwing away your vote"[...]?
Because the public is a bunch of fscking idiots! That is why any pure form of democracy is a pure form of insanity.
The public thinks that way because they are easily-brainwashed, easily-led, and have been told that by the two major parties so long they can't think for themselves.
I have been working on a similar site that is specifically oriented towards the /. crowd and fellow technophiles. In order for a /.-like forum to succeed where mass-media has not, it is necessary to have an intelligent and analytical group of people around (and by) whom the site is built.
Since your site is designed as a general-interest politics site, what will prevent it from having the same superficial "sound-byte" content as other mass-media outlets? Self-moderation only produces content as valuable as the contributors.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
1) From your biography:
"Scott's interest in politics was fostered
through years of political involvement with his mother, Sue Reents, a political consultant and former Idaho State senator (1991-96). Most
recently in 1998, Scott was a consultant to his mother's election bid for Lieutenant Governor."
Your mother ran as a Democrat in all of her elections for public office.
As one who assisted your mother, a Democratic candidate, wouldn't you say your views, as demonstrated by your experience, be biased towards the Democratic Party rather than "non-partisan" and "driven by civic values" as you claim on the Democracy Project web site?
2. How does an activist make a living? I mean it does not say on your biography how you get paid. And NYC is an expensive place to live, eat, work, etc. So how do you and your organization pay the bills? This raises the question of who or what funds your efforts.
I personally do not share the philosophy of either "Big Party" and do not care for their influences on the Internet.
Thanks
With two very weak candidates, this could be a watershed year for third parties. The UAW has endorsed Ralph Nader... Pat Buchannan is rousing up the protectionist nut-jobs... the Independence party might put out a candidate of their own and get on the ballot in a few states... Me, I will probably vote Libertarian this time.
Even if you know your guy has no chance, small parties need a certian percentage to gain major-party status in future elections, so your vote helps them whether the candidate wins or not.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I beg your pardon for joining the off-topic fray like this, but in what way is the meaning of the Second Amendment changed by the part about "A well regulated Militia"?
If I recall the wording of it correctly, the Amendment states that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and the reason for that is because a well-regulated Militia (by which, they meant a population that is properly equipped and ready) is essential to the preservation of a free state.
The notion is that if a dictator were to usurp control of the government (as has happened to nearly every prior government based on democratic principals), an armed population would be nearly impossible to completely control. Tanks and bombs are great against other armies, but an armed nation is much more difficult to overcome.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
One would expect that a candidate's information would be more documented on the internet. On a web page political history, stands on issues and essays written by political candidates can be posted, giving the voter the opportunity to examine the real person and his/her ideas so that an intelligent decision can be made at election time.
and then reality set in....
But this really won't happen, will it? The last 20 years have seen debate in congress degenerate into partisan shouting matches and 3-second sound bites replace answers to reporters' questions - to name a few things. Why then should we expect decent content on politicians on the internet when the opposite has been the trend?
Maybe they can vote on line? What for? We have absentee ballots for this. If able-bodied people can, they should get out and walk to the polls. We take for granted a right that few people will ever have - we should have to work to exercise it if only to remind us that RIGHTS don't come easy.
I don't see it happening. The more variables (people) you add, the more static you get.
Plato complained that too many people talking in the marketplace yielded no real debate on issues, just a lot of yelling. Apparently, the greater the crowd, the lower the common denominator (and quality of speech).
I've seen the same thing on a lot of bulletin boards. Back in the days of 300 baud modems, discussion could be interesting because only relatively intelligent people could figure out how to use a computer and modem and dial in. These same people were also capable of conducting themselves intelligently. As the technology improved and more people got online, the quality of discourse declined.
In the end, we will need major organizations to filter out the noise so that information can be usefully disseminated.
I don't believe that the Internet will do much to change the message itself; people are much the same as they always have been, and will continue to respond to the same hot buttons. The exception, of course, is when the Internet becomes the political issue.
The Internet can, however, change the means by which the message is delivered. Savvy politicians (or politicians with techie volunteers or campaign staff) can better target specific audiences with the part of their message that is most relevant to each group.
The Internet can also be a great tool for organizing the campaign and helping potential volunteers find out where they can plug in and make a difference with their special skills. For example, see here.
The heart has reasons that reason does not understand. - Jacques Bènigne Bossuet
Seriously, you want politicians to be 'objective' and tell both sides of the story, avoiding spin.
I'd like to agree, but I can't think of a single instance in my lifetime where a national politian has been elected because of issues. Everyone will use the buzzwords and catchphrases, but can you think of any successful politician (within the last 25 years) who has done what you ask? Why do you think the internet will promote 'content'?
Much as I personally despise it, I think the internet will merely promote more 'flash'.
Any doctrine that weakens personal responsibility for judgement or action helps create a climate that welcomes an
Atheism is an officially recognized form of religion. So Ayn Rand was just as much a close-minded religious fanatatic as that poster was (or wasn't).
By the government. Your guess is as good as mine.
The Internet is not yours to control. How arogant that you should think so. When I was working on HTML 3 back in the days, he held our freedom on the net most sacred. It's people like you that have ignorant comments that should be banned from using the net. Perhaps when my new game (Space Cadet 2450) comes out you will have better things to do. I am the lead programmer on this game and let me tell you, it is highly addictive.
In 1995 or 1996, when the web first began to catch on in the maintstream, a few commentators forecast that the Internet would have a revolutionary impact on US politics. After all, said the commentators, information and communication are essentially free on the Internet. They said that politicians would be able to communicate with millions of voters for pennies, instead of the millions of dollars that television commercials costs. Well, here we are: the fabled year 2000, with 50 million people online. And politicians and political actions groups have raised (and spent) more money than in any previous election. In New Jersey alone, Senate-candidate Jon Corzine has spent $30MM on the Democratic primary. The only difference in this election is that politicians now have to allocate some of their precious dollars to websites and banner ads. The problem isn't just the politicians. It is also the voters themselves. Yes, the Internet has been used, to a limited extent to mobilize politicized groups (e.g., WTO protesters in Seattle; abortion rights activists). But, the (great) majority of voters are still content to sit back and watch their candidates on TV, carefully edited into easily-digestible three- and thirty-second soundbites. So, my question for Scott is: What is going to have to change before citizens start to take control of the political system and start using the Internet to talk back to the politicians? How can the Internet be used to channel every-day citizens' political concerns in such a way that politicians can no longer afford to ignore them?
It seems that everybody is writing about net culture (i hate to even use that term) in one of two contexts 1) from a business point of view, or 2) from an alarmist point of view---you know, the scary "my daughter is going to be raped by a 45 year old man she meets online", anti-porn, anti-freedom of speech group. Does anyone know who's writing on the benefits of technology and the net? If anyone can give me names or lead me to some articles, I'd appreciate it. Thanks. You can email me at gedny@aol.com or I'll check the board
I don't know how many times this has been said before, but it bears repeating: the United States is a republic, not a democracy! Democracy in its purest form is dangerous. It is mob rule where in many circumstances the mob is frankly not qualified to make decisions about the future of their country. As a republic (a democratic republic, at that) we elect our representatives to make our decisions for us; our representatives (in an ideal world) are tasked with upholding the nation's morals and standard of living. The project should be called The Republic Project if they want anybody to take them seriously.
That's pretty idiotic. If a rich person wanted to buy all the bananas, he would be smart enough to negotiate with the companies to purchase them all at or below the current market price. One could only presume that he would buy these bananas for some purpose, probably to resell them for more money. Still, a pretty lame example.
Contrast this with the political process, whereby a bought legislator stays bought. A legislator who accepted someone's money in return for favors, and didn't provide those favors because someone from the opposite position paid more would soon find that they got no money from anyone.
A bought legislator doesn't have to accept money from both sides on an issue. It's a thieves game. They just have to play by their own set of rules.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Why would the companies sell them at or below the current market price? They know that they have more customers than they do bananas, so they know that they can get more from their existing customers.
Selling at market price means they would make as much as they would by sending the bananas to market. If you figure in other costs for distribution and whatnot, they might make more money by selling the bananas for a bit less than market price and unloading the whole bunch at once.
Translate it into the right to kill at will. How much would a rich person have to pay to get that right? The answer is: everything they have, and more.
Not likely. It depends on what you mean by "the right to kill at will." If you mean getting the government to recognize a right to kill, then yeah, that probably wouldn't work. There are other ways to go about it though, if you have the cash, that amount to basically the same thing. You can have people killed without being held accountable.
All they have to do is stay bought. And that's my point -- that a fixed amount of money is sufficient to buy a legislator to put the political fix on a market. And that's necessary because markets dynamically adjust their prices to counteract any fixing anyone tries.
I still don't think it has anything to do with markets. I'm not even sure exactly what you're saying here. Are you saying there is a market for political favors? Are you saying that since 10% of the people control 80%+ of the money that politicians take that into consideration and somehow balance things out by charging a wealthy person vastly more money in return for a favor than the politician would charge a poorer person? What exactly are you saying?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Not all markets are equally democratic.
Markets have nothing to do with it. The fact is that 10% of the population controls.. what.. 80%? 90%? of the wealth. Therefore they have 80 or 90% of the control if they "vote with their dollars."
"None of the above" would just cause another election. Eventually someone would be elected.
Exactly. And the elections would continue until there is a candidate that enough people actually want to vote for.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
...then the public wins!
--
Infuriate left and right
Do you really think such a thing is possible, even with the best of intentions? How many trusted, unbiased sources of advice for choosing a Linux distribution do you know :-)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
I think you're kind of underestimating the power of the Internet.
Remember, the Internet is a true democratic means to transmit information--you can read newspapers from all over the world, read commentaries from political web sites of every persuasion, and have discussions on web-based discussion boards and NNTP newsgroups.
Already, people like Al Gore have to be VERY careful what he says, because people on the Internet can dig up old statements from him that will contradict his current stances.
IMHO, the Internet may end up being the most democratizing force in human history, because it has made is possible for anyone with a computer and an Internet connection to spread information at speeds no one dreamt about even ten years ago. In the old days, you had to rely on newspapers, radio and television to get the news; now, you can get information 24 hours a days from anywhere in the world that can connect you to the public Internet.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
One of the greatest concerns that I have with the "online" presence of many of these political organizations is the blatant disregard for "The Truth" that some have. You mentioned in your article that the AlGore2000.org site seems unwilling to discuss the mechanics behind several of his proposals...to me this is nearly the same as writing a scientific paper with NO references or bibliography. Yet this behavior has become acceptable and commonplace in the polical arena. (In the media too, but that is another matter.)
How is an intelligent citizen to be assured that the information being presented is accurate, and, more importantly, complete? For an example, one needs to look no further than Maryland Governor Parris Glendenning's recent reference to youth handgun violence statistics that were obviously gleaned from Handgun Control Inc., although Glendenning says otherwise, that turned out to be nearly 200% overinflated compared to the actual FBI Crime statistics. HCI quickly corrected the info, with NO mention that previous info had been incorrect, and Glendenning made no further retraction or correction of his statement.
With politicians using such inaccurate information, and pushing it to eyeballs on websites, where is a person who is seeking The Truth to go?
Journalistic ethic seems to have died with Perry White (of Superman fame).
Scott
"Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid."
I hate the degenerate nature of discussion areas as much as the next person who would like to actually colaborate and learn using this technology. Perhaps there's something about asynchronous chatting that encourages escalation. Why hold back when 1) you're correct and 2)there's no consequence for being a worthless jerk? But do you really think that there can be a "politically neutral" Internet? The Internet has never existed separate from polotics. Some say that ARPANET was funded by Cold War fears. Others would point out the Internet embodies the ideals of the Cerf, Kahn and others. We all make many arbitrary political choices that determine our action. The key is not to seek a politcally neutral space, because that ignores the extent to which we are always political, but to seek a space that is collaborative, not degenerative.
Your list of suggestions reads like a kindergarden points list: be nice, share, play fair. What makes you think these tactics will be effective in the political arena where spin and perception manipulation rule the day?
Kaa
Kaa
Kaa's Law: In any sufficiently large group of people most are idiots.
Sir:
I am running for Alderman in a medium sized town. Turnout for my particular race should not exceed 2,000. I have a website with a news section, finance disclosure page, platform page, and soon, a slashdotesque weblog. What more can I add to enhance communications with my constituents, and do you feel the web can make an effective impact on local elections?
Thanks
JL Culp
You think the economy isn't democratic? But you vote in the market *every* time you spend your money. Whereas a political vote only happens once every couple of years. In-between the only way you can get heard is by spending money. Typically you have a choice between two politicians likely to get elected. This is by design, to ensure that you don't have a politician who was elected by a minority of the voters. However, markets support many more than just two companies. Coke/Pepsi, sure, but there's Jolt, R/C, and many store brands. Even when there's a monopoly, you still can choose NOT to buy. But even if you don't vote, someone gets elected.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Why would the companies sell them at or below the current market price? They know that they have more customers than they do bananas, so they know that they can get more from their existing customers.
No, it's not a lame example. Translate it into the right to kill at will. How much would a rich person have to pay to get that right? The answer is: everything they have, and more.
I know that a bought legislator doesn't have to accept money from both sides. All they have to do is stay bought. And that's my point -- that a fixed amount of money is sufficient to buy a legislator to put the political fix on a market. And that's necessary because markets dynamically adjust their prices to counteract any fixing anyone tries.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Sure, there's gazillions of commodities produced by very large, very wealthy companies, for which most people have very little brand loyalty. Without those purchases the wealthy minority would rapidly become much less wealthy. That's why these large companies are always kissing our butts and pandering to our every need.
It's also why those same companies try to buy politicians -- because it's a lot cheaper to buy favors from politicians (who don't care about the quality of your product) than it is to buy favors from your customers (who care only for the quality of your product).
And that's why we don't want politicians to interfere with the market -- because it distracts companies from what's important: pleasing us.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
But markets don't work that way! Whoever told you that was wrong. If you think it's common sense, then it's your common sense that's confusing you.
Okay, let's work through an example. How do you suppose bananas get into stores? Do you think wealthy people control this process? Let's say that a wealthy person decided, for some irrational reason, that they wanted to buy all the bananas. Obviously, bananas are produced by multiple companies in multiple countries. The rich person would have to start with one of them. As soon as they did, that would reduce the supply of bananas. Everyone else still wants bananas on their morning cereal, so the price they have to pay goes up. Very few of them care that much whether bananas cost $1.00 per pound or $1.10. However, the wealthy person now has to cough up 10% more to buy the next batch of bananas. And so on, until they start competing against other rich people (and there are a LOT of rich people in America who want bananas on their cereal and who are completely price-insensitive). There is no price for which they could buy up the last banana. And in actuality, they would run out of interest or money long before they got to that point.
In other words, they don't have 80 or 90% of the control, not when it comes to competing against the rest of society's interest. They have maybe 10% of the control, which is only appropriate since they are 10% of the population.
Contrast this with the political process, whereby a bought legislator stays bought. A legislator who accepted someone's money in return for favors, and didn't provide those favors because someone from the opposite position paid more would soon find that they got no money from anyone.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
Quite true. How many bananas do you think they buy in a day? How many yachts do you think the rest of us buy in a year? Not all markets are equally democratic. Some are for the rich and by the rich. Others, particularly the things that most of us buy most of the time in modest quantities, are completely uninfluenced by the activities of the wealthy minority.
"None of the above" would just cause another election. Eventually someone would be elected.
Government -- imagine Microsoft with nuclear weapons. Now try to run Linux, or *BSD, or Solaris.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
You have cause and effect backwards. The US is a republic because its laws are (supposed to be) neutral. When the law is fair, it doesn't matter who gets to vote on it. It is only when the law starts to favor one party over another that you see people want to replace a republic by a democracy.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
It is the nature of television that it is a visual medium, and is therefore superficial and shallow when it attempts to deal with deep and complicated issues <plug>(except for Frontline, Tuesdays on PBS.)</plug>. The conventional wisdom seems to be that the Internet has the potential to make for a super-informed voter. Do you feel that the text-based Internet is allowing for more in-depth analysis of issues to more people? Or is the abundance of information potentially confusing to those who are most interested in various issues?
- Rev.
The government's relation to the Net has historically been hostile (surely I need not bore you with the standard list of government abuses in the way of censorship, surveillance, infringement of fair-use rights, etc). Naturally, those people who use the Net and pay attention to politics (i.e. the people who bother to vote in Net polls) aren't going to be filled with warm fuzzy feelings toward government.
/.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
There are so many obvious reasons for this I don't know where to start.
First off, most polls used in the real.world don't count what your positions are and label on that basis: they just ask you "what party are you in?" Most Americans think there are only two parties, and "Libertarian" ain't one of 'em.
The difference with the net is, if nothing else, the Libertarians got here first, put up their "World's Smallest Political Quiz", and educated the heck out of anyone who surfed by. Net result (pun only slightly intended): more people on the net (especially more of the earlier adopters who were around at the dawn of the web) know what a Libertarian is and whether or not they is one, than in the general population.
That of course is not sufficient to explain it all, but it's a necessary component: you can't profess subscription to a philosophy you have never heard of.
Even more important, net access is still largely a privilege of "success" as construed by our culture. It is still the case the the college educated are over-represented on the net, that people employed in high-tech are over-represented on the net.
Frankly, libertarianism is more attractive to people who feel self-assured in their "success". Libertarianism stresses self-sufficiency, and thus its appeal varies directly with one faith in one's own ability to be self-sufficient.
The net is filled with people who are largely confident of their ability to make a reasonable living. They have good prospects, they're riding on the crest of a wave of economic development, are proud of their strong work ethic, and are largely (sorry) members of that long-privileged class, the upper-middle class white American males.
In the US population, on the other hand, is filled with (1) blue-color workers many (most?) of whom have been layed-off at least once in their lives (2) members of one of the many groups which have been subjected to open anti-hiring bigotry in living memory (women, blacks, etc.) (3) lived through the Great Depression. These people see their prospects as iffy (the rug could be yanked out from under them at any time), economic waves passing them by and being transitory at best, and their worth ethic, no matter how strong, as being completely irrelevant as to whether or not they can keep a job. They have far less confidence in their prospects for consistently keeping a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and clothes on their backs.
Regardless of whether or not libertarianism would benefit such people (I make no comment on that), most people in the US are not going to find a philosophy of self-sufficiency appealing.
The difference in demographics is very real, and where this is coming from.
It is further exacerbated by the fact that the libertarian demographic is also more likely to want to participate in on-line political polls. For one thing, the web is opt-in while real.life exit pols are opt-out, and minority political positions always opt-in in higher rates than the majority positions. For another, someone who is on-line 8hrs a day (e.g. someone who works in high-tech, a university student) is more likely to fritter away time on the web doing political polls than someone who only gets 1hr a day on-line because they work mopping floors. The person on-line 8hrs a day has more opportunity to respond to a poll. And the person who is on-line 8hrs a day, for the previously mentioned reasons, probably is more sympathetic to libertarianism.
Or maybe it's just that libertarians vote more than once. :)
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
The Leage of Women Voters was founded in 1920, to counter the assertion that if women were given the vote they were so ignorent they would only vote the ways their fathers and husbands told them to. It is a non-partisan organization dedicated to getting people involved in democracy. One big service they do is track candidate's records and statements of position.
Their unbiased reporting of this data is so respected here in MA, it's widely considered the standard. Usually before big elections the Boston Globe will run a special insert with one of their big position tables.
Frankly the problem is not getting good information on the candidates. It's the problem that the candidates suck.
----------------------------------------------
-*- Any technology indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced -*-
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Obviously a lot of people have internet access, but I imagine that many, like me, never go to a campaign website, nor have I seen any banner ads related to the upcoming vote. I know, however, that when we get closer, I'm going to be looking up that information so as to be better informed.
What percentage of the voting public do you believe will be affected by online/internet campaigning?
Do the current candidates 'get it' as far as how to use the internet, or are they relying on others to portray them. Ronald Reagan knew how to use the modern media of the time to his benefit, ushering in a new/different way of campaigning. Is this medium going to become as important as TV was in the 80s?
-Adam
Don't leave out the "A well regulated Militia" part, or else you'll change the entire subject of the second amendment...
I wonder if it's not a combination of factors - 1) that people on the internet are more likely people of means, and people who are able to take care of themselves are more likely to be libertarian, and 2) people on the net tend to be more computer savvy, and computer people tend to be more arrogant, which is another trait many libertarians share.
First, make it work, then make it right, then make it fast, then, make it bloated!
The two major candidates in the next presidential election are viewed as cardboard cutouts thrust forward by their respective parties. Neither is a great statesman, a peacemaker, or a highly respected man of wisdom. They're not horribly offensive, and they have business-as-usual middle of the road views, if those can be considered what it takes to become president of the United States. Yes, there are other candidates involved, but they're not going to get more than an insignificant handful of the popular vote.
Two questions:
1. Aside from "rah, rah, democracy is great, rock the vote" nonsense, please justify why voting in the upcoming presidential election is worthwhile.
2. Having two bumbling, unqualified candidates makes US-style democracy laughable in the eyes of other countries. Does this hurt democracy in general?
Start at "wars are bad" and just about everyone says "Yes they are". Say "That house needed to be burnt down as part of this campaign" and see how many takers you get...
If a politician was specific about his beliefs, people could only look at him and say "I don't quite agree with that."
They could just have every time zone have the elections at the same physical time (9 AM to 9 PM on the East Coast, 8 AM to 8 PM in Central, etc.), which would completely eliminate the West Coast time lag problem.
I think that makes way too much sense for politics, though, so it might have to be flagged down and talked about in committee for a few decades.
-
People are idiots. The majority make uninformed voting decisions based on party politics and other completely illogical rationale. The people who want to make informed decisions are the ones who will seek out information on the internet. So, just because the minority of informed voters will use the internet, how do you think it will actually effect the outcome in a major election? Most people are, unfortunately, won over by pretty pictures and charisma. Why should Al Gore change his website when it will get him more votes as it is? I mean, I know why he should, but my question is that why, when advertising gets the votes, should he waste his time making an info-mercial with the truth? He's spending his money, trying to win an election - the fluffy advertising is what's going to do it. It's sad, but true.
BTW, my suggestion to everybody deciding who to vote for: the one with the fewest mudslinging advertisements. Unfortunately, I've applied this in the last two major elections and I've never "won."
----------
Stupid sexy Flanders.
Much has been made of the effect Jesse Ventura's web site had on his shocking election as Governor of Minnesota. Do you think his site achieves any of what you call for from mainstream politicians? And do you attribute his success to the popularity of the site?
Bonus Question: Do you think that the "just-the-facts" internet culture you describe will spill over into offline politics?
For the record, I did not vote for Jesse, and am now deeply shamed to be from Minnesota. However, I could out certain Slashdotters who did vote for him...
"You can't get something for nothing." - my grandfather, on the stock market and Reaganomics.
Given that the internet is by it's very nature international, how should it be governed? Can ANY national laws be effectively applied to the net, where cross-border transactions (and re-routing) are the norm?
- Andy R.
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
The political activism groups that I have been involved with have never expected people to just find our websites with search engines. Instead we heavily market our sites as ongoing resources to people we encounter in other ways. As a result, we do not expect our hits to be coming from "geeks" any more than from anyone who can jump on IE in a spare moment and write in the url. To what extent should we believe in this "internet viewing public" rather than just aiming for the regular old public that happens to be checking out a couple of web sites?
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
How is it that third-party candidates are viewed by the public as "throwing away your vote" when it seems like they're the only way not to throw away your vote?
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
- Be User-driven - This sounds like advice to a portal site or something different. I thought a political message should be the same for the entire populaton, after all, we all have to agree with it in the same form in the end anyway. The only other thing this could mean is something simple like using cookies to remember what article someone read, but that's standard site-building practice.
- Exchange Value Fairly - Ha! This is even stranger! Now the objective advice tells the politicians how they should feel and act regarding online privacy (mind you I agree fully, but it's just wrong to read it here.)
- Be Objective - I saved this one for last because it's the most ridiculous of all. Politics is about everyone's personal view of the world and life. There's nothing objective about it.
Conclusion: worthless advice for "sided" sites and old news for the big news sites that already know how websites are built.what measures are you taking to make
.SP M.
:)
sure that certain people don't
stuff the ballot box?
to email me: remove
http://www.angelfire.com/punk/jello2000/
I modded the Troll Investigation and I got
Internet denizens are another demographic that must be "sold" to a level equal to their voting power. Candidates are going to view the Internet population in the same way they deal with all voting blocs. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as this core group may have different values than the nation at large.
From reading the mission statement though, I am having trouble discerning which purpose holds the greater good:
(1) giving potential candidates feedback about Web users' views;
(2) allowing Web users to be consumers of political information.
It is a subtle difference, but I want to know whether yours is a site I go to for information and interaction with other information seekers, or to bitch directly to lawmakers and potential lawmakers? If you answer "both", do you see them as compatible?
-L
I have to say that I view it as entirely unlikely that either of the two major parties will ever adopt such a system. The only thing that would encourage them to do so would be a third party actually making significant inroads into their voter base, or significantly altering the outcome of a close election.
What do you think of the ability of an "Internet candidate" to get enough of the sit-on-your-ass-bitching population of the Internet mobilized to do anything useful? And how will such a candidate get enough "real world" support to create a significant (think Perot-sized) influence on the electoral process?
The two major parties have been known to adopt rhetoric and positions from prominent independents, but how will a web site achieve this, no matter how well it is designed?
(I'd think a good small move in this direction would be for ANY candidate to run a slashdot-style forum and answer questions on it; but then I'd also like to make a fortune selling the monkeys flying out of my ass.)
Oh well, I just increased the font size instead of touching my nose to the monitor and squinting.
-- Diana Hsieh
-- Diana Hsieh
GeekPress: The Weirder Side of Tech News
First off, best of luck to you. I honestly hope you are succeed where so many have failed but I cannot resist some loaded questions.
Some groups believe that the lack of issue focus in American politics is the direct result of the structure of the electoral system in the United States. In other words, a electoral system demanding a majority causes bland, middle of the road politics and elections. In this view, the secret to electoral success is not offending people and mouthing popular ideas; not taking a stand on issues.
Do you believe this is true? Why or why not?
If you believe this is so, how do intend to overcome the structural resistance against issue based politics?
Do you believe most Americans vote for a canidate or against a canidate? Why?
If you believe most people vote against a particular canidate, who do think will dare take a stand as you are suggesting?
Do you see your cause as appealing to mostly "third party canidates" or having a wider appeal?
~~ What's stopping you?
Just for kicks I decided to browse your website using lynx and all the inline images didn't transfer over too well. Do you have any plans for "enforcing" web standards so that politically oriented sites have to be machine-readable so the visually impaired or other disabled people who have the right to vote are able to access this information as easily as normally abled people?
What!? Unknown!?
Oh, come on! He has been a nationally recognized whiner^H^H^H^H^H^Hpundit for a long, long time. More typical Americans know about him today than knew about Perot before 1991.
He also has the endorsement of the UAW, one of the countries largest labor unions.
If he gets anything less that 5% of the popular vote, he should view it as a profound failure and rejection of his candidacy.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Everybody knew about Perot by '91. My bad.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
It has been said that using the internet to campaign represents a fundamental shift in the way politics will run in the future. The question I see here is how is the internet going to help make people believe canidates have spent some "one-one-one" time with them. Will the internet replace things like townhall meetings with a live video feed anyone can download or is that kind of face-time with a canidate still important?
Arthropoid, the Right Clam for the Job
Are these higher expectations a result of being on the Internet, or does Internet access self-select people that have higher expectations?
Will the influx of people onto the Internet raise the expectations of the general populace, or will it dilute the expectations of the Internet community?
As much as I love arguing politics--for hours at a time, as long-suffering acquaintances could attest--every "discussion" area for politics I've seen online seems to degenerate into a few loud and presumably unstable individuals screaming about their point of view. I decided a while ago that I like my internet politically neutral.
How much actual influence will the internet actually have on the election? Is there more to this than everyone saying that "this is the first presidential election in which the Internet is a major factor"? Since the candidate web sites are little more than straightforward presentations of their campaign slogans, how is the 'net going to make the election any different that what it would be if the public had to rely only on the traditional news media? Will the anti-candidateX sites have any real effect, or will they simply be seen as more of the business-as-usual mudslinging that defines American election campaigns?
Intolerant people should be shot.
Considering the speed of internet communication is this going to make it even more difficult for those in the Western states to care about the ellection? After all, most of the networks already predict a winner LONG before the poles out west close.
"The way you think it is may not be the way it is at all." St. Oran
It has been noted that Al Gore is popular among geeks for many reaons, for example he invented the Internet, runs Linux on his web site and hides cool little things in his HTML source. What do you think other Presidental canidates have to do or are doing to "compete" with Al Gore for the Geek vote?
Bill Clinton raised a lot of votes by "reaching out" to the Youth of America, do you think Al Gore will continue to "reach out" to the Geeks of America in the same aspect as Clinton did a few years back?
In your personal opinon who is the more 31337 hAx0r: Gore or Bush? And Finally the question everyone is dying to know the answer to: If pited against each other in a roman style caged deathmatch, who would win, Gore or Bush?
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
So, given this strong incentive to keep proposals vague, what other incentives can we offer politicians to pony up the details of their plans for us?
And boy, was that ever a small font!
-- Diana Hsieh
-- Diana Hsieh
GeekPress: The Weirder Side of Tech News
A system very similar to what you advocate has been described in some detail in Orson Scott Card's book Ender's Game. In that book, Card describes online bulletin boards where people "share information, organize and build consensus around issues," to quote your essay. A central part of this book is that two genius pre-teens write intelligent posts and counterposts in a way that manipulates public opion on crucial political issues, for their own advancement.
So, my question is this: If someday the majority of people formulate their political opinions based on what they read in forums similar to Slashdot, will it be possible for individuals or organizations to manipulate the "public discourse" in such a way that advances their own agendas? If so, what type of steps would you advocate to reduce this type of "political trolling"?
Unhappy? Kill your television.
However, the more interesting question, in my mind, is how the Internet, as a medium, affects the message. How do you view political content changing as a response to the new methods available? Will political content move more to the extremes, since politicians can target more effectively, or will it move more mainstream, since more people are brought into the political arena.
Beyond the message, how will the internet affect political outcomes? Are there any potential policy options that become possible with the new methods available?
-sk
You talk about what the political parties should do to improve their websites, but don't mention what people outside political circles can accomplish. The websites you list in your article do *not* have what everyone says they want: An unbiased checklist of issues referenced to the candidates and their voting record.
Forget the political parties for a moment, as I don't believe they'll ever report unbiased information. That leaves us, the people.
Do you think there is room for a grassroots organization to collect the voting histories of candidates and publicize their records? If so, why doesn't such an organization already exist? Could such an organization thrive, or would it be besieged by political candidates who don't want their true voting histories known?
Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
So why do Internet political polls always generate results which are more skewed towards the libertarian philosophy? Is it because they don't "count" and so people feel more free to vote how they feel? Or is it because people who are drawn to the net value freedom more than security (insert obligatory Benj. Franklin quote here)?
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
But that's not politics. Never has been, and probably never will be.
So here's the question: Do you think that candidate sites are ever actually likely to provide objective data? Or do you think there will ever be a truly unbiased, trusted source (perhaps like the way the media should be) where specific information about tax cut proposals and so forth will be located?
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
Question:
Can we realistically say that the internet is making a difference in the political process? Can a basically unknown candidate like Ralph Nader get a resonable number of votes thanks to just his web site? Or are people really just going to the web sites of the candidates they hear about on television? In the closed capitalist mind space we inhabit, big monetary interests determine the range of possibilities people think are viable.
According to a recent IBM/Altavista study, even on the net the big money sites like Yahoo "basically control the flow of information". So can we really think that the net is going to suddenly bring us democracy despite the nondemocratic nature of our entire economy/political system?
Vote for Ralph Nader. Period. thanks! his web site kicks ass too.
michael
___________________________
Michael Cardenas
http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
http://www.deneba.com/linux
hyperpoem.net