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.
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.
Algore and his little fascist wife are no better than the people pushing through the Fourth-Amendment-emasculating "anti-methamphetamine" law.
There is only one party that *consistently* *in all cases* opposes censorship: The Libertarian Party.
--
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.
Why do I always find the trolls right after using my last mod point?
/.
/. 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