Slashdot Mirror
Making Technology Democratic
A century and a half ago, the visiting French critic Alexis de Tocqueville described a politically exuberant United States whose citizens didn?t let booming technologies like the steam engine distract them from enthusiastic personal involvement in public affairs and community life.
"If an American were condemned to confine his activity to his own affairs, he would be robbed of one half of his existence; he would feel an immense void in the life which he is accustomed to lead, and his wretchedness would be unbearable," de Tocqueville observed.
That description sounds more than 150 years out of date. As was apparent last week, politics is increasingly wretched and unbearable -- an arcane, irrelevant exercise carried out by media, political, lobbying and special interest groups in Washington. Individual citizens grow more apathetic all the time when it comes to civics and government, while politicians and their parties compete furiously to see who can do less and spend less. The average citizen has almost nothing to do with this process, so understandably pays less and less attention to it all the time.
It's impossible to draw even a bare majority of eligible voters to participate in a presidential election any longer, or to blame them for ignoring it. What rational person could be expected to pay attention to these pre-installed nominees, programmed mediafests and infomercials that masquerade as democratic gatherings? Last week, a Democratic party official on CNN announced with a straight face that his party's L.A. convention was "interactive" because webcams were running live in the make-up rooms where speakers checked their pancake before delivering their exhortations. And there seemed to be as many Apple logos as American flags on display in L.A., as the party was desperate to appear forward looking and original. The iMacs didn't work.
Political conventions may make journalists feel important and allow exhausted politicians to appear democratic, but fewer citizens get fooled each time around. By now, only a fraction of the public is paying attention at all.
New technologies like the Net have always held great promise for re-connecting citizens to the political process, and re-democratizing democracy. Some of the early Net pioneers and cyber-gurus believed they were creating a political, not a commercial or technological revolution, when they designed the Net.
But those fantasies have not materialized. In fact, many social critics blame technology for this. The idea that technology isolates and alienates people is widely held to be the reason for America's growing political apathy and disconnection, even though there's little evidence or logic to support that argument. Richard Sclove, an author and director of the Public Interest Technology Policy Project, argues that new technologies promise convenience, productivity and economic growth, but deliver disturbing hidden costs: deepening inequality, social alienation, community dissolution and political disempowerment.
"Contemporary technologies contribute indirectly to diverse social ills," he writes in a collection of essays called Resisting the Virtual Life: The Culture and Politics of Information. In particular, he argues, they conspire in subtle ways to significantly hinder participatory decision-making.
That idea is widely held by critics and members of the so-called intelligentsia, even though it's rarely explained and dubiously supported.
It's hard to see why technology -- rather than elitist, unresponsive political parties, government agencies and media institutions -- deserves the blame for political alienation. Online, technology has given new energy to the idea of free speech, fostered individual participation in discussions, created new kinds of vigorous communities with shared interests, and encouraged the spread of diverse opinions.
Still, Sclove argues that alternative technological strategies and designs might help sustain democratic community, civic engagement, and social justice. He agrees that the point isn?t to reject technology outright (is that even an option any more?) but to become more discriminating in how we design and use it. He suggests, for example, "barrier-free" designs for the Internet in much the same way "barrier-free" equipment and public spaces have been created for the disabled. Politically, the goal would be universal access to information, discussion and voting. Instead of being heard mostly through opinion polls -- perhaps the primary force behind contemporary politics and political journalism -- the people could simply speak and vote for themselves, using computing and the Net.
Sclove writes that if women were more actively involved in technological design, for example, they might promote more shared neighborhood facilities such as day care and laundries, or closer location of homes, workplaces and commercial facilities. (For that matter, men might want the same thing). This smaller scale use of technology and politics could work. A block or neighborhood chat room might work well to sort out community issues, even if most threaded discussions and chat rooms online are a nightmare of hostility and confusion. If you're chatting with your neighbor about draining problems, you're more likely to be civil and coherent.
Still, good luck. If technology itself isn't out of control, the people who design it and decide how we use it are. Human gene maps get rushed to completion so that bio-tech corporations can mass-market perfect humans, while some of the country?s best scientific minds are holed up in think tanks creating gizmos that allow us to get sports scores in our cars.
Technology that supports democracy and civic engagement? Nobody wants to pay to develop that at the moment, nor is there much evidence that anybody wants to buy it. Politics has an increasingly bad (and richly-deserved) rep and most research and development people in the tech world don't want to go anywhere near it.
Sclove's solution is to "open, democratize, and partly decentralize pertinent government agencies, create avenues for worker and community involvement in corporate R&D and strategic planning, and generally strengthen societal capabilities to monitor and, as needed, guide technologies' cumulative political and social consequences."
It's a fine, even noble idea. America's technology elite is particularly contemptuous of people it perceives as "clueless," (aka technologically inept). This increasingly powerful elite seems to lose touch with the non-tech world more with each passing day.
So using technology to revitalize democracy is a powerful idea, especially when the elephants and the donkeys are demonstrating once more just how dramatically the political process has changed since de Tocqueville dropped by.
Technology could surely make voting easier and more appetizing to citizens who could vote from their home or work computers. It could indeed encourage grass-roots decision making. We could start small. The Net, for example, could be deployed for communal discussions of manageable local issues -- crime, vandalism, barking dogs or trash pick-up. Citizens could use technology to get information about local budgets or follow legislation. They would have an easier way to communicate with lawmakers and officials. Moderated discussions could precede electronic voting, which could bring majority rule more directly to bear on stalemated issues, from the local school budget to town highway repairs. On a grander scale, such discussions might eventually foster progress and models for resolving intractable national issues like the environment, school vouchers, abortion and gun control, many of which rarely come directly to voters for resolution but get eternally debated by special interests, lobbyists, and politicians.
Is any of this likely? Probably not for a few years. The people who have been meeting in Philadelphia and Los Angeles show no signs of wanting to share the process with citizens, however they pretend to. But interactivity has brought a sense of empowerment to all sorts of groups, from computer geeks to online shoppers and music lovers to people seeking legal and medical information. Sooner or later, institutions like politics will get hit just as hard as the music industry.
Everytime that Katz writes an article it shows just how out-of-touch he is with society in general, and the USA in particular. There has neer been a time in the USA when the proles were in control. The USA is a Republic - The proles only have the illusion of power. Collectively, we don't trust Joe Six-Pack to make difficult decisions. This is a normally a good thing, but not now...
The actual *real* powers in the USA are slowly converting the country to an imperial state, with a large, permanent under-class that expects benifits and 'respect' (Welfare), a military that is ready to fight anywhere, anytime, to promote our 'values'(Bosnia, Middle East), a populous that is willing to trade freedoms for the illusion of 'safety' and/or money (Gun Confiscation, RIAA, Windows Products), and a ever expanding prison population made up of polictical prisoners (Drug laws). Oh, and we rely on foreign workers to man many of our critical industries. It is the Roman Empire all over again, complete with a Empororer/President that is a sexual pervert.
It is not too late to stop our self-destruction.
I give no more that 50 to 75 years to the USA Empire.
(This is posted anonymously because I really don't need the flames...)
Anymore, I cringe when people start talking about the great political disconnect and talk about getting more people involved. Let me ask you a question: would you go to the south american jungles, pull out a forrest dweller, and ask them if they were going to vote for Bush, Gore, Nader, Brown, or Buchanan? I'll bet you'd say no, since they obviously aren't involved and have no clue about what issues face the US. Now how different is a native of the rain forest from a native of the suburban jungle? If someone can't take the inititive to learn about the issues, do you want them voting in the first place? Apathy is enough of a factor that ballots have to randomize the order candidates appear because too many people just vote for the first guy on the list. One of the most uneducated comments that I frequently hear is that both candidates from the major parties are the same. This person will either vote for a third party candidate they no nothing about as a protest, or not vote at all. Should their vote count? Are they willing to say that Bush and Gore share the exact same view on social security reform, abortion, taxes, health care, and foreign policy? (DISCLAIMER: third party candidate also have issues, and most of their grass roots supporters are serious. Too many disgruntled voters don't know about the issues, however) John McCain was very popular amongst the supposed independant movement, but can anyone name his key issues? He had only one, campaign finance reform, an issue that most people don't care enough about to shape their vote. When he says that he does sincerely support Bush (and when you look at the issues, you see that they agree more often then not) he is booed off stage as a sellout. Were these people really that interested in campaign finance reform, or did they just want to buck the system? Do you want someone who doesn't know a thing about the issues voting? Technology will be the cure, right? Wrong! The internet is no different from television, radio, and newspapers. All the information passes through a filter, be it the NYT filter, the WSJ filter, the Dan Rather filter, the Jon Katz filter, the Matt Drudge filter, the Rush Limbaugh filter, the Howard Stern filter, the Rosie O'Donnell filter, or the filter of anyone else who makes the information available. Sure, most forms of media are covered by equal time laws, but does that really do anything? How many reporters retracted their accusations against Bush after a Carter-appointed judge admitted to leaking Grand Jury information last week? How many debate shows search long and hard for an itellegent representative from one side of an issue and for the dumbest moron of the other side to debate? How will the internet be different? Sure, I could get both sides of the issue if I bothered to look, but if people can't be bothered to get the info themselves, is it any better for someone with their own biases to spoon feed them information? People are free to vote as they please. If they can't be bothered to learn about the issues and get themselves motivated to vote, I really don't want them voting in the first place.
People who blame technology for making me not care about politics are just plain stupid. I don't normally like to insult people so bluntly(preferring instead more enlightened responses), but in this case, it is truly a stupid idea. The reason I don't care about politics anymore is that every politician is full of that squishy brown stuff. Plain and simple. Someone please tell me what sense there is in trusting people who we all know are going to lie to us(and indeed do lie to us daily)? And tell me, you englightened Democrats and you selfless Republicans, tell me again why it is whenever something good happens in the life of this nation, how your party is solely responsible for it and that it occured despite the evil and dark intentions of the other party. On second thought, howabout you just shut your mouth and go bug someone who has nothing better to do with their minds than to buy into your illogical tripe. The Republicans blamed the democrats for raising taxes and then the Republicans raised taxes. The Democrats, and this I really love for the sheer hipocricy of them all, were all over Reagan as a war monger. Well hello pinheads, your boy Clinton has killed WAY more than Reagan ever dreamed of. We smashed Serbia in violation of international law which we say we respect and give the side of that country that contains all the oil to known terrorists who seem more willing to give us free access to that oil than the democraticly elected Serbian government was. Oh, but this is peace and love huh? This is enlightenment? We kill thousands on news that hundreds have been murdered, and not a word is heard from the Democrats. Oh, but damned if they're not out every weekend, marching against the death penalty or walking for AIDS research. You noble humanitarians you. And you call Republicans hipocrites. You are morons, you are hipocrites and you are too stupid to see that on the one hand, you agree that thousands of Serbian people deserved to die upon news of "mass graves" containing hundreds of people, of which no photos were available till after we started bombing them, on the otherhand, you will demonstrate to keep mass murderers from the death penalty. Oh, but I'm stupid for not wanting to take part in all this. And the Republicans? I got news for you idiots, I do not live to work, I work to live and I'll be damned if you dimwits are going to con me into passing legislation designed to enslave humanity to the corporate powers that be. Let's get something straight right now, Companies exist to serve customers, not the other way around. Any company that doesn't like this can and should be ignored entirely by everyone for the sake of everyone. Well, this is what should happen. What is the "intelligent" Republican answer to corrupt companies? Why, take large sums of money from these companies and hose the taxpayer at every turn. When you need more revenue and don't want to raise taxes, why, we'll just jack up the DMV registration fees beyond what you normally would have paid in state income tax(thank you dickhead Pete Wilson). If that doesn't work, will just pass more laws with fines and we'll call it "alternative revenue generation". Then, just to piss in your eye and show our contempt for you, we'll brag about how we cut taxes. But I'm stupid for not wanting to be a part of this? Technology is somehow to blame simply because thanks to that technology, I've been able to dig up enough facts to see things for what they are? You politicians and you people who believe in politicians, you have blood on your hands. You let American's convicted of no crime be burned alive(in Waco), no trial, no due process, no punishment for the subhuman monsters who were responsible, but I'm supposed to believe you care about my rights and my freedom? You kill innocent civilians of other countries, but you decry the putting to death of those who prey on their fellow man in your own country, but I'm supposed to see how you're principled and righteous? Get your heads out of your asses, you people are the problem and blaming technology because people have grown fed up with your b.s. only serves to make you look like bigger idiots.
We have always been a representative democracy, not a direct one. Individual citizens do not govern, they elect representatives who reflect their views, values, etc. to govern. This system relies on informed voters. Anyone who needs the convenience of online voting and won't take the trouble to vote in the conventional way probably has not bothered to study the issues and probably should not be voting anyway. Relatively low voter turnout has been around since before de Toqueville. In a free society, some people take the initiative to learn the issues and vote, and others do not. This is as it should be. We have enough democracy as it is. Stop complaining.
I think that would be an excellent idea. The only thing that would change is that the politicians would stop pretending not to be for sale, and at least then it would be an honest picture of what's really going on.
-Mars
Actually when talking about political competence there is a easy, inexpensive, and nearly sure-fire way of determining competence.
Competent people vote.
If a person can not take enough interest in their surroundings to spend 30 minutes casting their vote, then they are clearly incompetent, and the political system is better off without their participation. We don't need more people voting for candidates based on issues like the candidate's hairdo.
It is especially critical that these people not vote in their local elections, where they might actually make a difference. Competent voters know that local politics make the biggest difference in their lives anyhow. A bad president has many checks and balances, a local Sheriff is another story altogether.
That's why I am not interested in people being able to vote online. Voting should require some of your time, and it should require that the potential voter have enough foresight to a) know where the polls are, and b) know when the different election days are.
Other than that I am all for making voting information publicly available in any shape or form that they candidates can dream up (and that doesn't include blocking traffic :). I am also for educating prospective voters so that they too can participate in the process. Once people begin voting, they almost always start actually paying attention to the issues as well, and they may even become a better person from the experience.
And the improvement of our citizens is good for everyone.
Exactly! The only people that are really upset with voter turnout are the people in the mainstream media. After all, they would like to buy and sell votes the same way that they buy and sell Coca-Cola. They can't imagine anything more wonderful than a world where they can fill the prospective voter's mind up with influences and then turn him/her loose on a point and click voting world. That way the potential voter could participate in politics without having to leave their armchair even for a moment. Click here to purchase a Big Mac, Click here to vote for President.
Quite frankly this idea scares the heck out of me. At least with the current system even the people who disagree with me have spent the time it takes to at least find out where the polls are.
It's easy to see people that don't agree with you as uninformed. However, your clueless friends undoubtedly vote for people that espouse their same "clueless" beliefs. They probably don't feel that their actions are useless, and they are almost certainly right. Almost without a doubt they have helped to elect several officials (especially at the local level), who have then carried out many of the same plans that they would have carried out themselves.
Part of the tragedy of the American system of government is that every idiot has the same amount of votes as you do. Unless of course you don't vote. In which case you shouldn't be surprised that the politicians don't follow your particular credo.
If all politics took was money, then Microsoft wouldn't be in the pickle it is now.
Politics is about votes. Pundits would like you to believe it is about money, because most Americans have a built in distrust of "monied interests," but the reality is that with today's fund-raising laws (specifically maximum contributions) the group that raises the most money almost certainly has the most supporters.
If you don't believe that there is a difference between Al Gore and GW Bush, then I don't want to know who it is that you think should be president of the US. While both are clearly centrist, there are definite differences in their beliefs on foreign policy, taxes, the role of government in the lives of the people, the environment, etc.
I would certainly agree that neither candidate is ideal, but almost certainly one of the candidates is closer to your idea of perfection than the other.
And if you don't vote, then someone else is going to choose for you, and they will probably choose the greater of the two evils.
One of the funniest sigs I have ever seen said:
Unfortunately, this is actually quite true. Most of us have just one small voice in a sea of differing opinions. We don't have the money and power that it takes to actually influence the president of the United States. However, there is still plenty that we can do. For example, if you have problems with the current political system then there are plenty of groups that advocate campaign refoms of one sort or another. Many of these groups are already quite large, and if you were to help one of them there is a good chance that some progress could be made. After all, campaign finance reform is turning into a relatively big issue.
Of course, if you don't want to vote, then feel free to excercise that right. You are also free to move to a different country and apply for citizenship there. If you do find Shangrila, perhaps you would share directions with the rest of us here on /. so that we can share in your enlightenment. In the meantime, I prefer to work in the real world. I also prefer to change my local government first. It's easier, and it makes more of a difference to my particular community.
Someone mod this up!
Actually my first paragraph was supposed to be sarcastic.
I am still fairly young (under 30), but I am convinced that while the rising generation always thinks that they have the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, they don't.
Generally what they do have is a poor understanding of history, and an overinflated sense of their own importance.
My point was that the reason that the Senior Citizens get what they want from the government is that their age bracket has finally gotten wise enough to realize that voting is the key to political power. Us Youngsters think that the key is to be seen on that most magical of devices, the Television. And so we riot and push over cop cars, and generally make a nuisance of ourselves so that NBC will capture our sorry little lives on film.
And then we complain because the Senior Citizens (and the other special interest groups that actually vote) weren't paying attention to us, but instead simply voted for their own agendas.
Have you ever wondered why no politician has ever really worried about the under 30 demographic? The answer is simple. People my age are too cool (or jaded, or stoned, or stupid) to vote.
I suppose that I inferred that you didn't vote because that is essentially what I am talking about. I have never said that you should vote for a Republicrat, I have simply pointed out that people that are competent politically vote. Actually I think that votes for third parties can have a tremendous influence on the system, and one should definitely cast their vote that way if their conscious dictates.
Please pardon me for miscasting you. Sometimes its hard to tell who it is you are talking to when the interface is plain old ASCI text.
Yes, us youngsters are going to save the world. We are going to unleash the power of the net and make the entire world a better place. And then we'll change the name of the U. S. of A. to Shangrila and everyone will get a free iMac.
The problems with the current political landscape are more the fault of TV media than anything else. The Lincoln-Douglas debates went on for days and every American that could read eventually read a copy of them. Nowadays all the average American knows about the politics is what they hear in the 30 second soundbites between television commercials. Americans have become addicted to the "quick fix," and would rather burn cars and trash coffee shops than go through the painful effort of politics.
The good news is that for the people that are actually intelligent enough to vote the current system works just fine. Special interest groups get what they want out of the system because they take the time to vote. It's quite simple really.
As for the rest of the article, it's clearly ridiculous. Neighborhood chat rooms? Are you joking? Heck, I can walk right out my front door and actually talk to my neighbors (and frequently do). And politics is still an important topic amongst Americans. The last thing that the U.S. needs is one more barrier between the people in our communities. The Internet is great for creating artificial communities like /., but there is no reason to make artificial communities out of our actual communities.
And as for your idea of voting from our PCs, quite frankly that is the last thing that I want. I am all for having political information be net-accessible, but I think that the actual voting should require that you take some time out of your day. After all, the problem isn't that we need more voters, the problem is that we need more informed voters. If voting were easier all we would do is increase the importance of things like the physical appearance of the candidate and how well he forms "sound bites." People would sit down at their PC and vote for the candidate that looked the "coolest."
Eventually the Net generation will realize that they need to vote (and be active in politics) to be heard, and they will get out and vote. They will give up their scruffy clothes, and their organized acts of violence in the name of "protest" and they will instead simply walk down tho the local elementary school and cast their vote. They will especially pay attention to the local elections because they will have learned that that is where they have the most influence, and where they can make the biggest impact. Of course, by then they will be Senior Citizens, but that is the way of things.
I have been thinking about this issue for a while myself. I am currently the chair of the Libertarian Party of Franklin County, Ohio, and a candidate for the Ohio House of Representatives, District 21 (eastern Columbus.)
:-)
One thing that really gets people to the polls is the appearance of a horse race. There are 435 congressional seats up in November, but the general belief is that 10 or 15 can actually go one way or another. The Ohio 12th Congressional district (eastern Franklin, Delaware and Licking counties) is the only one in Ohio that is considered a possibility for going one way or another. It actually has a good mix of urban democrats and suburban republicans.
However, the other 420 or so are pretty guessable. It all has to do with good ol' gerrymandering, but it's the "nice" type of gerrymandering.
For instance, there are 99 Ohio house districts. You could do a poll and say that 60% of Ohioans will vote republican and 40% will vote Democrat. Now, knowing that, the districts are gerrymandered so that approximately happens.
I believe this has an awesome effect on voter apathy. If you live in a district designed to go democrat (like the 21st) and you are a democrat, you might as well not vote, since your fellow democrats will take care of the race anyway. If you are a republican, you definitely need not vote, because you will be voting for the loser.
Politicians don't like 50/50 districts...it's much cheaper for the districts to be gerrymandered in the first place to get the same results than making good 50/50 districts, requiring the candidates to raise and spend gigantic sums of money to campaign. Funny enough, gerrymandering keeps corporate money out of politics, just a wee bit.
The solution to all of this is to seriously considering alternative voting systems, like preference voting in large multi candidate areas.
Second, I think we can say that whoever has the majority of seats in the house after Nov. 2000 will have no small effect on the political direction of the country. In essence, that means that only those voters participating in elections in the 10 to 15 50/50 congressional districts will have a say in the running of the country, as they will decide which party maintains majority.
That is a bit of a stretch, but I think you get the general point.
The second problem I see is how politicians talk about politics. Heck, I make this mistake too. De Tocqueville noted that Americans were always forming little organizations to solve problems and such. Politicians come onto the scene promising to solve problems for people. In doing so, that just enocourages voter apathy, since both (or all the candidates) will end up promising to solve the problem in their own way, meaning that people just won't have to worry about it once the candidate gets into office. Now you have to remember that this is coming from a Libertarian, and that my beliefs usually center around small-government and free market solutions...blah blah blah. So in my mind, big government has introduced the idea that someone is always working on the problems and issues at hand, and that's our general expectations of politicians and bureaucrats. Politicians and Bureaucrats certainly dont' want you to get invovled trying to help solve the problems yourself. With that attitude, and the fact that both parties are vying for control to solve the same problems, people just become apathetic because now they dont' need to think about them. So why should they vote too?
One quick thought about the presidential electoral system. The fact that our states are winner takes all is a modern fabrication, there is no Constitutional requirement that winner takes all be used. But it makes sense for the states, especially large ones, to use winner takes all...because it makes that state a very powerful selector in the presidential race. So eventually, all the states went to winner takes all, in order to maximize their influence and attractiveness during the election (if a couple of votes could mean losing the whole state, then the candidate needs to spends lots of time campaigning there.) Since it is a federal issue, Congress could just step in and require that the electors vote proportionally based on results of the general election. I guess that would be ok, but the big states (like Ohio, a gigantic state that could go democrat for Gore if it's raining in Cincinnati, or Bush if it's snowing in Cleveland) would have lots to lose in the process, and the big states control a large amount of Congress anyway.
The fact is that politicians generally work very hard. I know of several congresspersons who put in 12-16 hour days and their staff likewise puts in these long hours. From the outside it may look like they are living it up and spinning away their days with social events, but this simply isn't the case. Take a moment and imagine the type of stress they deal with. If you leave your house with your hair less than perfect or a stain on your shirt, will someone photograph you in your worst? If you are a politician, they will. They work hard, but they always have to look fresh because someone is waiting to for them to screw up.
This is the type of mentality which aggrivates me, and I see it in Katz' article. He presents the failure of politicians as a fact to be assumed by everyone. I have found that people have a much different viewpoint after they know a politician personally. Sure there are some bad apples, but generally they are simply people who are wanting to serve.
Politicians plead for people to get involved in the system, and when voters feel bored because voting doesn't resemeble a video game or a web site they blame the politician.
Some might think this is a predictable response from someone living in DC, but I encourage readers to get to know their representatives. Don't make the lazy mistake of lumping them together as a failed system.
-- Solaris Central - http://w
My thought has been for a while that the federal government should now create a fourth division, The Peoples' House wherein citizens may vote directly on issues. Not so long ago this would have been impossible, but with the Internet and touch tone phone systems so widely used there isn't any reason why those without net access can't vote via an 800 number and a touch tone phone.
"only those who actually care about the outcome will bother, and those will tend to be more informed than others"
pffft. yeah, right. I know plenty of people who are quite consistent about voting and are also completely partisan and completely uninformed. The most consistent voters are the True Believers who would vote for their party if they nominated a slime mold.
The US has entered a culture of significant social isolation. This has been lead by the suburban dream, a flight from the class mixed cities, and enough land to stay away from your neighbor. It has also been catalyzed by technology such as television, personal audio, and other mechanisms that keep people from interacting with one another. And it has been further strengthened by two-parent working families and the workaholism of the last 20 years.
Of course, it helps that there really is little for most people to worry about. The government has provided a fairly stable money supply to avoid inflation/deflation cycles since the early 80's, and the real problems of the US are of a social nature and not really solvable by the government.
The two party duopoly on power (held by ballot access that in many states is worse than in Russia) dramatically limits the political players. The US is so media-flooded that millions of dollars are needed to mount any serious campaign even for statewide officials. Campaign finance laws are rigged to work only for the incumbent politicians of major parties. Add this on to a governmental structure that makes it the most difficult for any new laws to pass, and it isn't suprising that there isn't much interest in politics, since there isn't much an individual can do.
That's probably good in many ways - governments that can do things fast and efficiently tend to end up oppressing or killing people fast and efficiently. It's bad enough we have the War on some Drugs.
What we need is for people to stop thining politicans can solve our problems. No social problem has ever been eliminated by government. Government has a mixed record on the economy, but Alan Greenspan does seem to be doing OK recently anyway.
We all need to turn around, and look at how we can improve our fellow person without government.
There is no excuse why an IT worker making $60K can't spend one night a week teaching an underpriveleged person how to use a computer. There will be almost no labor jobs soon (they will be outsourced to foreign countries), and service jobs will only pay enough for those without children (young people, theoretically). Go help people get better jobs, teach them.
I think you're confused if you think special interest groups are something new. They've been around for hundreds of years, and they are only slightly more influential now than then, and that is due to the increase in the size of government bureacracy (where paid-off decisions can hide better).
:)
Don't listen to the campaign finance reformers - so far, the reform has done nothing but make it more difficult for newcomers to run for and win office. It throws up enough hoops that you have to get a lawyer to go over all donations and expenditures. It leads the taxpayers to spend $60 million on Al Gore and George Bush, LIKE THEY NEED THE MONEY! Oh yeah, $10 million to those Reform guys, that evens up the score! Actually the $10 million lead the Natural Law Party to infiltrate and try to take over the Reform Party (i.e. John Hagelin), but that's another story.
Policians will only craft campaign finance reform laws to work in their own interest. Public financing will be public financing for the incumbent politicans and parties (not polling over 15%? Sorry, no money for you, hahaha!)
Even public donation reporting is a problem. Why do we have a secret ballot? To keep the winning politician from attacking you for voting for the wrong person. So why should making a donation to a politican be public? It is the same logic, infact a corrupt politician is more likely to attack someone who gave money to the other side rather than just a vote.
At the end of the day, instead of campaign finance reform, please consider opening up ballot access. At least you can vote for a Libertarian, Green, or Reformer who you know the AFL-CIO didn't give money to
One more thought, these "special interest" are often "actual interests." In truth, it isn't like the tobacco settlement is actually helping anyone. I'm the NRA, along with millions of others. And no one would be happy if the government did something to make all the car manufacturers go bankrupt. And wow, we see what $2/gallon gas does to spoiled Americans, better let those oil companies drill where they want or we'll have a riot on hand (only a half smiley on that one!)
I don't see why you have to have censorship. PACs and corporations can spend all the money they want on commercials for their favorite candidates as long as "PAID FOR BY XXXXX" is plastered all over it
That's great, but the "XXXXX" can ostensibly be a lie. Like "Committee for Responsible Drinking" could be an organization backed by hard liquor companies. Or it could be backed by the "Drinking Safe" organization, itself backed by the liquor companies. You can't believe everything you read.
At the end of the day, common sense is the only reasonable campaign finance reform.
It isn't technology that has ruined Democracy: it's Lobbyists, and special interest groups, all looking after their own little patch, instead of looking at the big picture. The perfect case in point is the MPAA's support for the DMCA - extremely damaging to the person on the street, but ideal for the movie studios who pay for the lobbying.
Democracy used to be of the people, by the people, for the people. Nows its of the lobbyist, by the lobbyist, for the lobbyist.
Quark
--
I've got green eyes, red hair, and I'm left handed. A hundred years ago, I'd have been considered in league with the De
..and a truly astonishing use of your time..But under the dunce cap, I have little hair.. P.S. Can I get a copy of this?
jonkatz@slashdot.org
..but what about technology and democracy? can one be used to promote the other?
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Thanks for this post..but do these chats, which are tightly controlled (I've been on a few, and the questions are tightly edited and screened to keep the yahoos off who run amok on threads here). Politicians really aren't pressed, and only an infinitesmal amount of people get through..Has anybody seen a bit chat interview that really works? To me, this can only work on a smaller level, as in a block, neighborhood or school environment? Yes?
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I didn't set it up, but when I was at Hotwired, we set up a local political chat room..Sadly (and familiarly), it was disrupted by the tostosterone poisoned, for whom there is no cure or antidote. There are two chat rooms in my town..one for a neighborhood seeking to revitalize itself, another for a school/parents group trying to resolve some racial problems..Both are working very well..I'm online enuf, but there are a number of groups who set up chats like this..Few chats work yet, in my experience, just as few coherent discussions online are possible because of the hostility..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
If pols are overwhelmed by e-mail petitions, does the e-mail have any meaning..Isn't it highly manipulable?
jonkatz@slashdot.org
My monicker on
jonkatz@slashdot.org
If you read the column (or the intro) you'd see that I was disagreeing with the statement that technology causes disconnection with politics, not agreeing with it. I have no problem with disagreement, but you might at least skim the subject matter and I do feel entitled to be quoted more or less accurately..at least within the ballpark..this is another lazy post..
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Yes..this is completely accurate and wise, IMHO. Lobbyists and corporations are the number one political contributors to candidates and have completely corrupted the political system, as John McCain has been arguing for years. I think much more than technology this has disconnected people from politics. Corporations have lobbyists, but citizens no longer do.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
This goes back to the question of autonomous technology..does technology control us or do we control it..I personally feel technology has the power to reconnect people to democracy, depending on how it's use. But I agree with the poster that people perceive technology and its many offshots and disconnecting them..I blame this on the takeover of politics by greedy and mostly corporate interest groups..Why should people pay attention to a system that doesn't pay attention to them? But I don't believe it's technology's fault..we can, as some posters have suggested, use technology any way we want.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
...is not only a great idea, but really stands out as to the political promise of the Web, especially contrast to the jerks mouthing off on most public topics and forums...This seems to me a potentially brilliant response to the question of whether technology can advance democracy. Thanks for it.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
..I hope the moderators get the intelligence of this post...I think Tim is correct..Technology is a mirror, not a cause, IMHO. But the question is, how does one have civil conversations online? All you have to do is see what the tiny minority of
jonkatz@slashdot.org
.Personally, I think all parties are now too restricted to contain the explosion of ideas and opionion in evidence on the Net and elsewhere.>Why limit oneself to one way of looking at all issues, when there are countless opinions and points of view available. I really have come to dislike the ideaof parties and specific and confining ideologies, two or three or five.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
I think this is just a description of thoughtful conservatism, not a response to the question about technology..Technology doesn't create a political environment, but the issue is whether it can affect the political environment..Size of government is important but seems a different issue to me.
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Lots of
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Has anyhone heard the term "social isolates"
jonkatz@slashdot.org
But the issue is really technology and democracy. I'm neither a Luddite nor a technocrat happily, as even a cursory reading would show..My own notion here is that the 2002 campaign will change things..that this will be the first election in which people who grew up on the Net and the Web will run for office, a la Jesse Ventura..when that happens, people will have a leader to follow and an agenda that make sense. Any thoughts?
jonkatz@slashdot.org
...I've ever seen on Slashdot are down below in this discussion..it's really worth trolling past the shitheads to read this stuff..some of it is amazing,a real testament to what discussions on
jonkatz@slashdot.org
Capitalism is a compromise between collectivism and individualism (and some other things). There's no simple stark choice between capitalism and some kind of collectivism. There are both more individualist systems (pure libertarianism and anarchocapitalism, including variants that would not permit limited liability corporations), and others that sit comfortably in the modern view of neither camp (Tucker or Spooner's socialist individualism, or certain Green and "luddite" ideas).
The idea that women would design things so that houses would be closer together to promote easier domestic mechanics ignores two things:
1) That's a sexist idea. No further elaboration needed.
2) Women drive cars too. Our cities are not built for people, either men or women. They are built for the easy movement of cars. If you doubt this, just try to get around a typical suburban environment without a vehicle. You will sweat your ass to death as you try to cross the vast concrete spaces between the places you're going to and from.
Folks, it's our job as the smart people to spot and highlight the bullshit that various political forces want us to believe. And bullshit comes from a lot more places than just Microsoft.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Yes, the purpose of technology is a huge game of 'one-up-man-ship' - I want a faster computer so I can sneer down my nose at those with old slow ones, I want lots of fast late breaking information sources so I can know about events before my neighbor does, and a fast car so I can pass those bozo's on the interstate, it's a socio-economic status symbol, etc., etc. While a few inventors and engineers entertain feeble notions of it being used for the benefit of all (like Radio, TV etc should be used for education, etc) what happens is it gets largely used for competitive business purposes (advertising, public manipulation, etc). Look at how international competitions, cold or hot, leads to lots of techno developements. You've got something there, Katz.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Perhaps, but that is irrelevant to the point I made. If Ross Perot hadn't run (and if Bush had won as a consiquence) we would not have a balanced budget (though our taxes might be lower). There might also be other minor differences (health-insurance being more tightly coupled to jobs, no family leave options, etc.) but on the whole things would be pretty much as they are, modula the budget surpluses we currently enjoy.
It was Ross Perot who put the budget deficit on the public agenda and forced both branches of the Corporate Party (both of whome were doing their best to ignore the entire subject) to address the issue and do something about it. It was his spectacular performance in the 1992 election (an unprecidented 20% of the vote) that enabled him to do so. You do not have to win in order to affect change, get your message across, or even get your policies enacted. Often, a significant showing is enough.
Those whos votes made up that 20% had more of an impact on both who was elected and the policies they had to address. As a result of 20% of those who voted in 1992, we have a balanced budget. My (wasted) vote for the Corporate Party in that election (and the one which followed) didn't have anything close to that kind of impact even though the candidate I voted for won!
So, maybe someday what you say will be true, I look forward to it, but right now, I just don't believe that is the case.
You missed the entire point of everything I wrote. Please reread what I wrote and think about it, then explain to me precisely why you feel a vote for a third party candidate is wasted. Perhaps then I can reword what I was trying to convey, such that you do not miss my point. (This is not a flame: I am seriously wondering how I might have conveyed the point more clearly).
To summarize what I'm trying to say
[1]His candidacy was scuttled for reasons involving alleged ongoing inter-party electorial collusion I won't go into here.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Balanced budget ? It was republican congress that forced this issue not Clinton.
(Obviously you didn't read a word I wrote, since I did not make any claim whatsoever that Clinton forced the issue. I am inclined to treat this as a troll, but since others might be confused by your misinformation I suppose I'll respond.)
It is no more true to say the Republican Congress forced the issue than it is to say Clinton forced the issue (and I said neither of those things). It was Ross Perot's campaign in 1992 which forced the issue onto both the Democrat and Republican arms of the Corporate Party. The former wanted to lower taxes (and spend more money on defense) the latter wanted to spend more money (on healthcare, student assistance, etc).
It was not until Ross Perot emerged as a force to be reckoned with that both parties put balancing the budget on their agendas, and while Republicans and Democrats differed on the particulars, both wanted to balance the budget in the end (in the face of such overwhelming popular demand that they do so). It was that environment which ultimately forced recalcitrant Republicans and recalcitrant Democrats alike into forging a compromise and actually balancing the damn thing.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Two words: Electoral congress
...
And a few more:
Senat. House of Representatives. State Legislature. Gubornatorial Races. Mayorial Races. City council races. And the list goes on
Besides, politicians and pollsters alike pay attention to the percentages of the losing presidential candidates (even those who get 0 electorial votes). Perot is an example where 20% of the vote (and 0 electorial votes) got his agenda adopted by both branches of the Corporate Party.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Jon Katz is correct in identifying one of the reasons so many people feel disconnected. Both wings of the Corporate Party (Democrat and Republican) are indeed disconnected from the public, unresponsive to their desires, and all too eager to take priveleges, liberties, and even rights from them in the name of some popular, pet cause.
People on both the left and the right sense something is very wrong, despite our unprecidented prosperity, but few can put their finger on exactly what it is. Even my mother, who is a (misguided) ardent supporter of the War on Drugs comments on the shrinking relevance of the constitution and the rights it was supposed to protect.
With most issues already decided by the corporate and industrial movers and shakers to whom both branches of the Corporate Party are beholden to, there is little rhetoric to differentiate the candidates from one another (pro-choice vs. pro-life, perhaps, and possibly pro-healthcare reform vs. status quo) and even less practical difference, as neither branch of The Party is known for ever keeping its promises if such should disrupt the status quo.
To reconnect, we need to break free of the myth that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote! This myth is the single most destructive and counterproductive mindset the voters have.
If you dislike the Corporate Party's policies (Democrat or Republican), then voting for them (and thereby vindicating the very policies you oppose) is a wasted vote. Worse, it is a vote counter to your conscience and desires, which may help to explain why so many people chose not to vote at all, rather than vote for something or someone they abhore. Of course, if those were the only choices, I probably wouldn't bother to vote either, and who could blame any of us!
But there are other choices, other parties, some with very good candidates for both president and congress. In particular, Ralph Nader of the Greens, and many of the Libertarian candidates for congress, are quite good options, and there are others.
As Ross Perot demonstrated by putting the budget deficit back on the political agenda, despite the Corporate Party's respective branches unwillingness to even discuss the issue, a candidate or party doesn't have to win in order to affect change in public policy. We have a balanced budget today in no small part because Ross Perot got 20% of the vote in 1992 and shamed both branches of the Corporate Party into addressing the issue (and demonstrated in no uncertain terms that it was an issue many people cared about).
If you cast your vote for candidates who represent your views on an issue, be they socialist, libertarian, consumer advocacy (Ralph Nader), or whatever, two things will result"
one: your vote will have a much bigger impact than if it were cast for one of the Corporate Party candidates. Each percentage point a "third party" candidate wins has a disproprotionate affect, simply because it is so surprising to the powers that be. Frankly, it scares the hell out of them (why do you think Ross Perot, a demonstrably viable candidate, was frozen out of the debates in 1996?) and this fear is an effective tactic to get politicians to listen, and quite possible adopt, the very issues the losing candidate is trying to address.
Even if the vote is split among several third party candidates, can you imagine the power the message of discontent would have if 15% or 20% of the voting public voted for none of the Corporate Party candidates?
The only truly wasted votes are the ones which are either never cast, or cast for a candidate the voter does not like. The only weak vote is one cast for the status quo, be it Republican or Democrat.
The most powerful vote is the one cast in opposition, not because the candidate necessarilly wins, but because it empowers the losing candidate to be heard, and (if enough people vote for them) makes them impossible to ignore. Your single vote, alone, is much more likely to tip Ralph Naders percentage up by one, than it is to tip the balance between Al Gore and Dubya Bush.
In short, get out there, vote your conscience, and don't let the powers-that-be convince you that voting in opposition to them is a waste of your vote. It isn't. It is the most powerful thing you can do with it.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Not being able to figure out which of your "categories" he fits, is probably a compliment for him or anybody.
- sigs are for wimps.
In 1996, only 54% of registered US citizens voted for the presidential elections.
And you want, less people to vote ?
If there were some way to limit voting based on competance (IE, do you understand the candidates positions in issues) that would be ideal (in my mind) since it is not discriminating against anything except lazyless.
There is no way to determine competence short of a mind reading device, so your idea is not practical.
What problem are you trying to solve ? Most people do not vote ! Are you afraid we're choosing the wrong people, when most are not voting ?
- sigs are for wimps.
I agree with you on Dole. Actually he's been on Comedy Central's "Daily Show" during the coverage of the conventions and he has a great sense of humor. Had he used more humor in his run for president I think he would have been much more successful.
I have been waiting to release news of this until the project and website was actually completed, but I guess there is no better time or place than now to point this out to everyone. I have been working with these issues for several years and luckily stumbled across this excellent piece while searching for community resources at the local library.
New Community Networks: Wired for Changeby Douglas Schuler
The book was published in 1996, long before most people even USED the Web, much less thought of it as a vehice for social change. I found out that the book had since been out of print, and since then have established communication with the author and volunteered to convert the book to XML so that it can be indexed and searched full text on the Web. Although that is not yet finished, you can read it at the current site on the Seattle Community Network's website:
Click Here To Read It!The entire book is online, and you can probably find a paper version at used bookstores or the library. I hope one day to be able to distribute the text to others if Doug has the license returned back to him. Everyone involved in the Open-source and other democratic technologies needs to seriously get this book - it was WAY ahead of it's time
Some of you may have never even HEARD of the term community network before; I hope this helps you to see the immeasurable value it can provide society.
As far as the development of Democratic Technologies, I myself am getting ready to go public with my very own ".org" - CommunityCode, which is a non-profit organization dedicated to developing, promoting, and supporting democratic technologies, namely an advanced information system that promises to be everything Napster and Gnutella have missed.
I will post more about CommunityCode as developments occur. The website, www.CommunityCode.org should be up soon, when we get the hardware setup, etc. Anyone interested in this project can contact me at my email to find out more.
In 1996, only 54% of registered US citizens voted for the presidential elections.
:)
And you want, less people to vote ?
No, I'd like more people to get involved, but keep in mind that all options expressed from me are hypothetical, relying on the ficticious basis that I am living in a country that ISN'T completly apathetic.
I'm fully aware my idea isn't practical.
I don't have an answer to the problem, I was simply spouting out random thoughts.
Sorry
Finkployd
Man, that was pretty insightful :)
It sort of goes along with something I said in a post a few days ago, about voting signal:noise.
The signal, being the people who activly participate in civic politics and research voting records to determine which candidate to support, is being drowned out by the noise, being the people who absently pull a party lever without researching anything or based off of a single issue.
When people activly participated, the party system worked well, now that people vote for a party like a reflex action without thinking, it doesn't.
Finkployd
Democracy doesn't mean jack if EVERYONE doesn't have access to the vote
Agreed, however we are not a democracy. The popular vote has nothing to do with who is actually elected president.
As for apathetic voters having less a voice? It would be nice if they did. If you are not following issues and actually paying attention to politics, then your uneducated vote is simply throwing noise into the mix.
If there were some way to limit voting based on competance (IE, do you understand the candidates positions in issues) that would be ideal (in my mind) since it is not discriminating against anything except lazyless.
Finkployd
What would keep politicians from simply wording legislation in a way that only a professional politician (lawyer, etc.) could understand?
This happens now. They also play on widespread misconceptions to try to pass "hot issue" laws (ie, banning plastic guns, even though there is no such thing and the closest that there is, glock 17, is easily identifible by EVERY metal detector and X ray machine.)
Finkployd
Like reading Mr. Katz's articles and mentally substituting apostrophe's for question marks.
Democracy isn't something mystical. It is advertising. Period. If you think a person is doing, or will do, a good job, then they will get elected.
The discriminating buyer will spend their time, look at all the options, and make a well informed decision. A few people have brand(party) loyalty and will always buy the products of a certain manufacturer. Others will go to the store and just pick the cheapest/flashiest off the shelf.
However the bulk of people are content to absorb whatever is thrown at them. They assume that the choice between "Special K" and "Corn Flakes" is really excercising their right to choose, not realizing that there are only two fundamental choices(General Mills and Kellogs) when choosing their breakfast cereals(or politicians).
The internet and technology gives you more information, more options, and more choices. However it rarely gives you better choices.
To which, allow me to add the following: just because something is 1500 years old doesn't make it technological.
*sigh* Okay. Now, you're just being contrary. But I have to respond. Why do I have to respond? Because you make it so easy, and because it'll stretch out my lunch break a bit, and because I'm an anal-retentive putz who can't help himself. Why am I such an anal-retentive putz? I don't know. Maybe Katz will do an article on it.
Okay. In order:
Not really. All the quotes from my wife are pretty much copy-paste, and after she reviewed the post, she was satisifed with the attribution. The correction I added was to a statement original to me.
The post to which I reponded originally stated that technology enabled us to "transition from hunter-gatherer subsistence." If the definition of technology is sufficiently broad to permit the onset of agriculture, I think that I'm safe in including flush toilets.
The only conclusion I draw about capitalism is that it can be attributed to technology only as convincingly as the existence of life on Earth can be attributed to the Sun. Sure, one wouldn't exist without the other, but it's such a crass oversimplification that it isn't worth talking about. Plus, it leaves out the fact that technology gave rise to every governing and economic system since... um... well, ever.
To the contrary - chicks dig it when I put the smackdown on
And in the words of Forrest Gump, "That's all I have to say about that."
At the risk of invoking a pretty good episode of The West Wing, "Post hoc, ergo propter hoc." Which is the pretentious Latinate way of saying that just because one thing happens after another, doesn't mean it happened as a result.
Unfortunately, this is a lesson I don't think you're taking to heart. For example:
This is as silly a piece of luddism as I've ever heard. While I can't claim to actually have been around at the time, I'd be willing to bet that our ancestors were more than willing to beat each other senseless for the sake of food, or a desirable mate, or even plain old obedience. Just about any garden-variety anthropologist will assure you that technology isn't a prerequisite to avarice.
I think what you're trying to say that this point can't be disputed, not that it can't be argued. In any case, this is a clasic example of "post hoc, ergo propter hoc" at work: because capatilist societies sprang into being after technological innovation, you jump to the conclusion that technology creates capitalism. In doing so, you neglect every other economic and political system that has ever been devised since, as you put it, we "made the transition from hunter-gatherers." If technology causes capitalism, it also causes feudalism, democracy, socialism, communism, facism, and God only knows what else. Technology doesn't just allow us to focus on exploiting others, it allows us to focus on anything other than satisfying the most basic of needs.
Or, as my wife (a Phi Beta Kappa, cum laude - more Latin! - graduate in anthropology) put it, "Technology is what allows you to flush your poop away. So wipe it, bucko, and don't forget to put the lid down." Wisdom for the ages, I think.
Well, how about preferential voting? Here's how it works:
I'm pissed with the Aus. Labour party because of their swing to the right.
In the booth I vote preferentially: 1 to the green candidate (or whoever), 2 to Aus. democrats, and then 3 Aus. Labour, and then down further into the shit.
This can be done bottom up too. Start by putting your most hated candidate last, and then work your way into the middle. Yes, enjoy cathartic headkicking while voting!
The votes are counted thusly:
I voted green. If they get eliminated, then my vote goes to the Aus. Dems. And again, if they get eliminated, to Aus. Labour. *No wasted vote*!
The greens may not get in, but my preference for them gets counted, the major parties get a big scare, and the fascist bastards i didn't vote for don't benefit from my vote. Lovely.
"Can technology be used to promote democracy?" is the wrong question. Of course it can, and has, probably since before the printing press.
The right question is how should technology be used to promote democracy? To which I'd answer "very carefully".
Most Americans seem to have accepted the common fallacy that "we live in a democracy". We don't, (it's a democratic republic), and one of the Founding Fathers' concerns was that it not become a democracy -- since historically democracies have proved to have rather short lifetimes -- about how long it takes for the populace to realize they can vote themselves bread and circuses. Alas, America has been going down this road for a while -- arguably changing the constitution to provide for popular election of senators, rather than appointment of them by the States, was a major step down the slippery slope. (For simple proof of this, consider how the Clinton impeachment conviction vote would have turned out if Senators were appointed rather than having to worry about reelection.)
Many commentators have decried the "government by poll" that in some cases has become a hallmark of modern government. If you think that's bad, consider the situation if the polls were instant (electronic) and binding.
Joan Vinge had some interesting insights into the weakness of a society organized around electronic democracy in her story "The Outcasts of Heaven Belt". I'm all for electing a representative government, especially where there might be some good candidates to choose from (alas not always the case). But do we really want government by the lowest common denominator that a pure democracy gives? Consider why even employee-owned companies choose a CEO rather than deciding everything by vote.
Certainly technology has a place for keeping the public informed of what their elected employees are up to. (And from this POV it's interesting to see what public files are now being closed by governments as access by the net, vs manually searching a paper file, becomes more prevalent.) But it shouldn't be too easy to vote -- heck, even the current trend to massive mail-in voting, let alone web-based voting, is disturbing.
Politics, like good governance and good management, requires people skills (I know, geeks don't want to hear that). Robert Heinlein wrote an excellent book, "Take Back Your Government" (republished by Baen Books a few years ago) explaining how this all works at various levels from local to national. Anyone who wants to understand this, let alone participate in it, should RTFM.
-- Alastair
I've said it before, and I will again, that cannot be allowed to happen.
Well then, who will not *allow* it? Are you proposing a tyrant and dictator to ensure that people do not freely vote for Bush? Suddenly your post makes Nader all that more palatable in comparison. I will not vote for Bush, but I will defend to the death the right of any US citizen to vote for him.
My conscience doesn't like voting for Gore, but it likes Bush being elected even less.
If you vote for the lesser of two evils, you are still voting for an evil. I acceed that you have the right to vote for evil people, but I wish you would be honest and open about it, and proudly proclaim the fact that you will vote for someone whom you clearly consider evil.
Your conscience might tolerate electing evil, mine will not.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Oh? I'm sure the people of Sweden (you know that northern european social democracy with the highest standard of living in the world) might argue that with you.
Sweden is a capitalist nation. Look up capitalist in the dictionary if you don't believe me.
It is morally bankrupt to let %30 percent of your nations children grow up in poverty when more socialist systems
You need to define this "poverty" that you talk about. If you mean that %30 percent of the US children are destitute, you are flat wrong. If, on the other hand, you mean that %30 of US children are in the bottom third of families ranked by income, you might possibly be correct. So what? That Sweden has only a few digits in the lower third of incomes means that there is massive forced restristribution of earned income in Sweden.
All so the rich can stay massively wealthy while holding out the carrot of prosperity to the ill educated masses of poor they produce.
I would say that this is an indictment againt the US educational system, which is already a very socialized institution mandated for every US child. If the chilren of the US are ill educated, then I can only conclude that the US experiment in socialized education has failed, and it's time to give educational vouchers and tax credits a chance.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
This is insightful, but it ignores one crucial thing. Economic systems are not the same as political systems (although some do pair better than others).
I want liberty. Take the government out of the economy, and I will be happy with the result, be it either anarcho-capitalism or anarcho-socialism. Either is preferable to the government controlled corporatism of today. I am against tyranny, be it monarchal tyranny, or democratic tyranny.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Personally, I think anarchy is a really bad idea...
So do I. Which is why I didn't advocate anarchy. I only advocated anarcho-economics (of either the capitalist, communist or other variety). I certainly want the government to do what it should rightly do, and this is to protect my life, liberty and property. But I want them out of economics. Keep the courts, the military, and the police. Keep the laws against force, violence and fraud.
And for those that think radical libertarianism leads to corporate domination, I also advocate the repeal of the incorporation laws.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Somewhen in the past fifty years freedom has become confused with democracy. Certainly it is one facilitator of freedom, giving the common man the franchise. But it is not sufficient for freedom, nor is it really necessary. Hitler was elected into office by a majority of adult voters. Need I say more?
What is necessary for freedom is a limit on government. Where and how this limit is to be drawn pretty much defines political parties. A balance needs to be made between a government with too little power and one with too much.
It doesn't much matter to me if technology aids democracy. History has shown that a government by the people can be every bit as corrupt as a government by an oligarch or monarch. What I want is technology that aids freedom. I want technology that makes me independent of the need for government, and technology that can protect me from abuse of government.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
More nitpicking:
So what do you call people who live in North and South America collectively?
Special interest groups and lobbyists have been around forever. TV hasn't.
Now, everybody watches a couple hours of TV every day, and you don't have a hope of getting elected unless you show up in their faces over and over. That takes big bucks.
Politicians didn't need that much money to get elected in the past. Before people learned to sit back and let all the information they need (or at least, all that they get) effortlessly flow into their brains from the TV, they actually sought out important information like politicians' platforms. Now they just listen to whatever's on the ads and in the news, so if a politician wants a chance in hell, he needs to take millions of dollars from wherever he can get it, whatever he has to do to get it.
---
Despite rumors to the contrary, I am not a turnip.
Two things to point out here:
1) the US election season is a __LOT__ longer than pretty much everyone else's in the world. Some politicians can be accussed of never stopping running. This gives a lot more time.
2) I live in a large city in a frequent battleground state. Every presidential candidate worth mentioning comes to Chicago at least a few times during the campaign. I just make sure I'm able to get to a public event a few times a year. The most I've ever given politically is $100 and that was to hear Forbes speak. '
Is my effort extraordinary? I hope not. Can most citizens do it? Certainly. Both Gore-Illinois and Bush-Illinois will happily tell you when their guy will next be in town and where/when his public events are, at the cost of a phone call. I urge you to try it.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Have you ever gone to see/hear a political candidate speak? I mean really listen to the words, observe the gestures not just hear the soundbites? It is a very different experience from a ten second clip on the television or the net. I do look up what the different candidates say in many speeches on their websites. However, I don't cast my vote until I've actually heard both candidates speak twice, once in front of a positive audiance and once in front of a receptive but not overly positive crowd. The web is a great aid but it doesn't convey the full experience. How many readers can claim to really have observed Clinton so closely? If people had actually listened to Dole, he would have done much better.
So long and thanks for all the fish . . . !!!
Is that so? Kennedy and Bush are the only presidents in the last 50 years who came from even remotely wealthy families. This is the first election in a long time with silver spooners representing each of the major parties, and Gore's spoon was only silver-plate.
Jeff
Setting aside any discussion of the merits of your idea, I'd like to point out that there is an important part of the executive branch that consists of little other than lawyers: the Justice Department.
Jeff
This in turn gets around the "tragedy of the commons" in large populations. In small communities one's reputation with the neigbours is important, but in large ones you don't often meet the same people twice, and hence have no incentive to be nice to those you do meet, or to let them see how civic you are.
The Advogato metric has its problems, but its still pretty interesting.
For that matter, Slashdot has its +1 bonus for those with over 20 karma. If you consistently post nice things, your postings get more attention. Same principle.
Can we build a trust metric which can help us identify and reward civic-minded people? What would such a system look like? Any ideas?
Incidentally, "Distraction" by Bruce Sterling includes a rough outline of just such a system.
Paul.
You are lost in a twisty maze of little standards, all different.
I think Katz may be overreacting a bit here...and I'm not one of the Slashdot Peanut Gallery members who flash their street creds by bashing Katz.
Some sites set up recently to help facilitate coverage of political convention related news from an "outside the convention" perspective. The news is posted in a strictly "ground up fashion," and tends towards a leftist and anarchist user base. Unsurprisingly, I find it refreshing.
Indymedia LA
Indymedia Philly (a neat implementation of slash)
And if you want to bypass the corporate press:
The Media Channel
Think Different
It is much easier to be involved in the US political process now than it has been in my almost 40 years of life.
The reason fewer people involved is because they DO NOT WANT TO BE INVOLVED!
Why this is such a burr under the saddle of those that are involved is beyond me. Sounds suspiciously like self centered arrogance on the part of the political hobbyests and pro's alike.
Just because *I* enjoy or view as important a particular activity does not make others lesser people because they are interested in different things.
When you get down to it, once you get past your local elected officials, the DC based wonks do not have much of a day-to-day impact on the average person. Looks like most people have realized that, since they now have a chice to watch something else *besides* a convention (in contrast to the 1960's) during this season. They are not forced to watch the president on every channel whenever he has the whim to call a press confrence, etc.
So, political hackers, just chill (including me), because other people have other things to do that THEY feel is more important. Anything less would be Stalinist, or at least Chilaian(sp?).
Visit DC2600
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
I used to work at Houston City Hall and I took it upon myself to convince my boss (a councilmember) to use the net as a communication tool for her office. It wasn't exactly an easy task to accomplish, but once I got her to accept the simple fact that more of her constituents could participate in our forums and neighborhood meetings, she had no problems with me implementing the idea. I know that I was very fortunate to have worked for her because of her open mind towards technology, but, at the same time, other councilmembers who I thought weren't as open towards the idea were asking me how they could set something like that up in their offices.
All it takes is one person to get the ball rolling, and others will follow. Anyone out there who is working in a governmental office needs to work on getting their offices to embrace the technology we have available to us because the net is a wonderful way for local government to become less of an ethereal object and more of a tangible leadership.
Involvement is all that's missing from the political arena here in the US. Something like net-based forums would help get people involved in their local governments, and from there, it can only grow. One of the biggest problems facing all governments here is that people are too afraid to get lost in the bureaucracy. The office I worked in took some of that bureaucracy away by letting our constituents get in direct contact with our councilmember. If we start locally, I think it would logically follow up to the state and (eventually) national levels.
Just my $0.02 on the issue.
djx
the only trail worth taking is the one you blaze yourself
...but pure democracy is plain and simple mob rule. There's a reason why the word "democracy" is hardly mentioned if at all in the U.S. Constitution. Our founders knew better. Technology or no, Americans have flourished under a system by which the will of the majority can be (thankfully) overridden by the rule of law. Civil rights legislation is clear enough example of that.
The US has a constitutional republic which uses democratic processes within it. However you want to use technology to enhance that, fine. But don't ever confuse that with the idea that government in America has or should have democracy as its core.
Power turned to the common people is a BAD thing? Bullshit. It is really sad if you actually think two political machines alone constitute a healthy and "grassroots" government. That is rubbish. We are in this shape because barriers have been RAISED to public participation (how many people do you know are actually civil servants or have run for office)? Corporate money floods the political system ensuring that big corporations get a larger voice than citizens. Big money needs to be taken out of politics, campaigns publicly financed so that they are fair, and candidates beholden to the people.
America deserves much more than the anologue of two flavors of vanilla in government. There should be a plurality of ideas and parties and people should be active in them. Not just mindless lever-pullers to be won by multi-million-dollar conventions of all show and no substance.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
I don't see why you have to have censorship. PACs and corporations can spend all the money they want on commercials for their favorite candidates as long as "PAID FOR BY XXXXX" is plastered all over it. I'm a lot less likely to be positive about a commercial backed by the tobacco industry, for example. Taking non-citizens out of the loop will be a MAJOR step. Sure, wealthy people will still be able to donate a lot, but at least they won't be able to do it anonymously under the mask of a corporation.
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
>Other people living on the same continent (like Canadians and Mexians) can be referred to as
>"North Americans", but not "Americans", because the contintent they live on is "North America",
>not "America".
Wow. This comment has been moderated so high.
Ok, if I was moderating, I would have given it points, but it would have been +1 Funny.
It really says something about the moderators. Maybe they've been watching too many Mel Gibson
movies recently?
There's a nice mix of self-centeredness, ignorance of geography and jingoism.
So, there's a North American continent, and an 'American' continent. Strange, I always though
that is was things like continental plates and land masses which determined a continent,
but I must be wrong, as this poster and some moderators know that it's political boundries.
So, is there a Californian continent?
Hey, wow, now Belgium can be it's own continent!
(Aren't you other citizens of the US of A embarassed of people like that?)
"The best part? I became an ordained minister while not wearing pants." -- CleverNickName
So why don't you set up a neighbourhood chat room? Whay don't you go round and talk to your neighbours, see which ones have got computers, organize cheap 2nd hand ones for the ones that don't.
If there's one thing that's been learnt from the Open-Source "revolution" is that it's no good just talking about it, if you've got an idea and it's feasible to do it yourself, then what are you waiting for?
So what are you suggesting, if chat-rooms don't work, then surely by extension, on-line democracy won't work.
I agree with you to a certain degree that forums such as this one don't work once they get mass-appeal, too many posts to make a valid conversation, too much randomness and uninformed ranting etc.
Don't get me wrong, I love Slashdot, but it's more as some sort of interactive circus than a place for serious discussion.
I'm sure that I can remember when it was much better in the old days, and kuroshin used to be good, before it got too famous.
But this doesn't bode well for online democracy, if the only way that serious discussion can happen is keeping the masses out. Not too democratic is it.
Or perhaps it's the anonymity that does it. I'm sure that most of the first posters etc. wouldn't come out with the same sort of crap in a physical meeting, or perhaps I'm overestimating them.
Until these problems, phenomenons, call them what you want, are better understood then on-line democracy isn't going to work.
So why don't you set up a neighbourhood chat room? Whay don't you go round and talk to your neighbours, see which ones have got computers, organize cheap 2nd hand ones for the ones that don't.
If there's one thing that's been learnt from the Open-Source "revolution" is that it's no good just talking about it, if you've got an idea and it's feasible to do it yourself, then what are you waiting for?
(Sorry to post twice, replied to the wrong thing)
I think you've hit the nail on the head here. People are disconnected and uninterested in politics because we feel our wishes and views don't matter. Perhaps around the periphery our votes might make a difference, but to the core issues that affect our lives, our wishes simply do not matter.
There are several reasons for this. The political reality is that wealthy interest groups -- mostly corporate interests, since they have the money -- usually get what they want. The mass media distill serious issues down to 15 second sound bites, rarely explain issues well enough for the populous can understand them, and often present them in such a way as to say "this is too complicated for you to understand." The two main political parties are not very democratic themselves.
But I think the central reason for voters' lack of interest is a feeling of impotence. We do not get to express our wishes, only to pick one of two pretty similar candidates. More importantly, we don't get to participate in finding the solutions to our problems. The very best we get is a choice between two candidates' solutions to problems.
It's frustrating to think of the wisdom possessed among the 100 million or so adult Americans -- or the 2 or 3 billion adult humans -- that is being completely ignored by the political system. I'm not suggesting direct democracy, where everyone votes to choose among a few prepared solutions to a few carefully chosen problems. I'm suggesting involving ordinary people in finding the solutions to our problems. This is the idea of citizen consensus councils. Experience has shown that a group of ordinary citizens will often find novel solutions to problems.
On the question of whether technology can help, I think it can. I would offer slashdot itself as a model. The moderation by ordinary readers seems to be pretty effective at holding down the flame wars, and works pretty well to bring out consensus. I believe this sort of tool applied to politics could be very empowering. It would certainly need to be modified to:
I believe a tool like this could eventually become a real force for inclusive democratic decision making.
My honey and I had this discussion a while back, and for the sake of argument he took the 'wasted vote' approach. You explained it more eloquently than I could. (Lux, are ya reading this? ;-)
As for technology being the cause of political disenchantment, that's bull. I would not be suprised if a disproportionate amount of the 'techno elite' are apathetic about politics when compared with the general public, but I really think that has more to do with the fact that most geeks are members of Gen X...and we know how jaded Gen Xers are... [including myself]
Whether tech can be the catalyst for renewed political involvement, I don't know. I think it has the potential, if Congress and the Mega Corps don't legislate it to hell and back first.
The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
The House Between - Original Sci-Fi Series
In some cases, yes. Remember that the entire point of the Bill of Rights was to place certain freedoms beyond the control of majority rule. For example, I would claim that allowing a newspaper to be censored if 51% of the people desire it is a bad thing.
Big money needs to be taken out of politics, campaigns publicly financed so that they are fair, and candidates beholden to the people.
Many people keep demanding this, and either don't recognize or ignore the fact that it would require massive censorship in order to have a chance of working. Not only do you have to prevent the parties themselves from raising funds illegally (and we all know how well that's been working), you also must prevent private entities from using their own money to express their views. In other words, you must censor political speech, which I believe is a worse cure than the disease.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
And of course they won't just make the laws so that it doesn't, coz there's no money in politics...
Gav
"There's no such thing as data that can't be manipulated"
Sorry,
but this isn't the way that things turned out. cute little rustic communities where people relate to their neighbors because they like them, a bunch of subsitence farmers -- it was a nice idea, but the big fat commercially-driven community where we relate to one another not out of social desire but economic need, *that's* what actually happened.
technology means i don't have to speak to my neighbors, and that's not unamerican. the notion that jefferson's republican ideal is somehow more american than hamilton's urban model for what makes us great is silly, and unfounded. tech destroyed your relationship with your neighbor? sure, maybe, but it also made you a million new neighbors.
i dunno. seems to me that the argument that tech make it possible to relate to those to whom we choose to relate, rather than those to whom we've got a physical proximinty, and therefore degrades the quality of our relations with others, is at odds with common sense.
god is just pretend.
Absolutely it's possible. While both conventions had huge protests outside their doors, which the mainstream media generally hid from the public, it was all broadcast, however, on the growing http://www.microradio.net. Then streamed out to multiple locations, and broadcast on local microradio stations in various US and Intl cities. It was truly great hearing live from the streets audio, interviews, etc. (archived audio is available in 30 min bites).
This is an example where a very cheap technology ($150 for an xmtr to attach to your computer) is giving the people a powerful democratic voice to compete with big money media. Access to media is, in my opinion, essential to a democratic process.
I voted for Perot and if he wasn't there, I would have voted for another 3rd party candidate.
Perhaps I am an exception but I haven't ever entertained the thought of voting republican. I remember my parents voting for Carter and Mondale (Minnesotan, what can I say?).
So if I was restricted to vote D or R, I would have chosen D.
If it wasn't for Nader, I would be choosing another candidate that shares at least some of my views (read: I won't vote for Buchanan).
The Libertarian and Socialist candidates even offer more hope than D/R.
I know, we Minnesotans are an odd bunch but I remember a LOT of people in N. Minnesota that normally vote Dem chose Perot.
-Veldrane
Perhaps he should have stated something more along the lines of "grew up in the computerized community." Or maybe the "people that the Net grew up with."
The net's biggest advocates aren't 16-20...they're people that were part of the group that pioneered the net (or had a geek interest in it). ESR is close to 35, isn't he? Woz?
If you're still reading this, JK, is this closer to what you had in mind?
-Veldrane
And I hoped Katz had gone away forever.. ;). (he sure hasn't posted in a while..)
~Marshall
--
Homer: "No beer, No TV make Homer something something";
Marge: "Go crazy?";
Homer: "Don't mind if I do!"
arcane for life
Things are going to change, but a change in politics is going to take a change in our society, and things like that don't happen in weeks or months, but decades. People like to think of revolutions as distinct, sudden change, but for true lasting change, it must be more like an evolution, where things change slowly over a long period of time, and except in retrospect, the individual doesn't notice the change in day to day life. There may be a few specific dates that stand out in political history (like women's sufferage) But that did not "just happen" It was the result of years and years of work, first starting out small, and then getting bigger and bigger, until the pressure to change is overwhelming, and then we get the discrete event, in this case, women getting the right to vote.
I'm all for slow movement in politics- when something works on such a vast scale, quick changes can go both ways, good and bad. If we want a lasting change, we need to be patient. The internet is far from being a mature technology. We must be patient so it can find its lasting place in our society.
"To reconnect, we need to break free of the myth that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote! This myth is the single most destructive and counterproductive mindset the voters have. "
Picture this: Gore and Bush are neck and neck. chances are there are only about 10-20% of the population that would consider voting for Nader (this isn't that far off considering the numbers out right now). So lets assume 40 Bush, 40 Gore, 20 Nader. The large majority of people that would vote for Nader are all Democrats that would otherwise vote for Gore. If those Democrats go en masse and vote for Nader, without a large unregistered population voting or voters that haven't participated recently in elections voting, then Bush will have won the election 40, 20, 20. If you split the otherwise solidified Democratic base, then you'll end up with a President that doesn't support your views (Bush). However, if you join forces (Nader pulling himself out of the race and moving his voters towards the Democratic platform while campaigning FOR Gore). Until direct democracy becomes feasible and desirable, the current system will have to deal. And enough of JKatz and his doomsday sayings. The political system is not all that bad.
1. You say that you can't imagine a more anti-democratic, non-interactive assembly -- what about the Academy Awards you were so fond of? They are specifically and pointedly both non-democratic and non-interactive. Remember, the point of the political conventions is not to be democratic, it is to confirm and celebrate a decision already made.
2. If women designed things, there would be communal (neighborhood-oriented) laundries? What world would this happen in? Where I live, the women get home from work around 6:00 PM and I doubt that they want to have to go down to the neighborhood laundry to do a quick load of clothing anymore than most men do.
I am sure that it is wonderful to be smarter and more caring than everyone you know, but it is possible that some things have come to exist because they work best and that's the way that people want it.
In closing, I agree that it's sad that more people don't vote, but I don't find it surprising: people like Katz have been telling them that their vote won't help or count for close to 40 years.
I wish I could agree, but I am just way too cynical.
I can't believe that most people (OK, 99%+) would actually take the time to inform themselves MORE than they do now.
Ask yourself why do people in the US only vote for large national elections? Because those are the only ones where people have a clue as to what candidates are running and what they are about.
I like to think of myself as a reasonably aware, intelligent person who tries to be a good citizen, but I simply don't have time to keep up on what my local park board candidates stand for, what my state representative stands for, or who actually follows through on campaign promises.
What I do do, at best, is scan the candidate summaries in the local paper the week of an election. Most of my friends don't even do that.
So how can average citizens be expected to keep up on more issues? Be able to make informed choices on social security reform, tax overhauls, NSF grants, or any of the million potential outlets of democracy?
My cynical response is that at best, they will scan newspapers/TV/radio/Web and vote according to pre-packaged, pre-digested, slanted, biased reports. Especially openly biased material like newspaper editorials.
And my worst fear is that media hype will send the public into a frenzy of mis-informed action, however well intentioned. How many people would have voted on new immigration laws based on reports on Elian Gonzalas (sp?)? Impeach Clinton? Grant any money at all to the NSF? Would a Mapelthorpe piece on 60 Minutes result in a shutdown of the NEA? I think so.
I don't think badly of Joe Sixpack, I just think citizens no longer have time to conduct their own research into issues, and keep up adequately with issues. Federal congressional members have significant staffs to keep them moderately aware, and they devote full time to government. How can I, who can barely find time to do the dishes at night, stay on top of foreign policy in the Middle East?
If forced by well-intentioned Democracy proponents into taking a more active role in self government, I would turn to the media - and I have absolutely zero faith they do anything except their actual mission, which is to increase stockholder equity.
So we have poorly informed people being spoon fed spam-like news digests by profit-motivated media outlets - a recipe for disaster. Sorry, that's how I see it.
If America ever becomes a democracy, I'm leaving the country. The founding fathers had no idea how helpful the idea of a republic is - they were concerned with the population (well, white, affluent, landowning, male population) being too stupid to handle voting, but it was never more problematic than today. The media utterly controls our every thought and opinion. Due to control of the release of facts, even many spirited dicussions on Slashdot are a bunch of us who heard the same media reports discussing implications - but in the vast majority of cases we are all basing things on what we hear N+1-hand. It is exceedingly rare in the "real world" (whatever that is) when the public can personally experience a situation. If the media goes on a vandetta against a political candidate, bill, law, issue, country, etc., the public will follow suit. Imagine what could happen if the public could vote to impeach a president? Even less actual work than ever would get done, with officials continuously pandering to public opinion. The shifting winds of public opinion could instantaneously result in knee-jerk reactions by a public whipped into a frenzy. Wag the dog... Republics may be lead by representatives that every 2/4/6 years (in the US) have to pander to public opinion, but imagine if they had to constantly? How would an American public make decisions on public works, national defense, international commerce, space and science, or any other detailed issue? Imagine the MP3/napster debate - one really good speech by either side and the public confirms or elimninates copyright law. Are politicians in the US republic great? No, they are cheating, lying, lazy, marginally felonious lawyers who seek only their own self-interest. But I'll take that any day over a public who receives most of their information from People magazine. Bottom line - I strongly question a goal of promoting more democracy.
Moderators are on the $3 crack again.....The parent of my original post might as well have been taken straight from the 'Troll How-To', yet I get modded to Troll for pointing it out?
-----------------------
Moderator's essentials
I don't care about the content and I don't want to see it censored.
Anyone who has ever seen a Troll How-To will recognize that this is simply a cheap attempt to provoke reactions and gain karma
-----------------------
Moderator's essentials
This means that more than twice as many people will use the Internet as an election resource than will buy books, download music from Napster and trade stocks online combined.
My point is that if you're looking for critical mass, it's already here. But if you're looking for politicians and the government to lead on this one, you're looking in the wrong place. It's up to us collectively to set a high standard for how the Internet gets used for political communication, to make sure that it doesn't end up like Television, The Sequel. 2000 is a unique opportunity. By 2002, most people's expectations of what the "political Internet" is will have already been set.
Interested? Check out my personal effort to help set that standard, or email me and I'll point you to other like-minded folks who are doing good stuff in this area.
First: Do you honestly think that previous first wives had no influence on the policies of their husbands?
I wasn't fond of Hillary's health care proposal, but I was happy to see that at last the influence of people close to people in power was now out in the open. I'd rather know what the first lady thinks than have to guess how much of the president's opinions come from. And that's to Clinton, we now we pay a little more attention to potential first ladies, which I think is a good thing. We scrutinize presidential candidates' choice of advisors, why not spouses? They're advisors, too, you know.
Second: There's lots of positions we don't get to vote for. Are you unhappy that we don't get to vote for cabinet positions? Supreme Court justices? Federal judges? Ambassadors? Lots of unelected people run lots of things in this country. If you think you are qualified to have a say in every position in the government, then more power to you. I certainly don't have the time to pay attention to every detail of our country's daily business.
In a related topic - doesn't anyone else out there have an interest in technology AND politics? I spend my fair share of time in front of a monitor, but I still gather information and try my best to vote responsibly in every election. I don't think I'd have the right to complain about the state of our government if I didn't.
W
tags
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
There are some interesting solutions available through technology if we think "Outside the box" (I hate that phrase). Let me give you just a few examples...
/. in order to filter information.
/. we must have hundreds of millions of dollars worth of stock in 401k programs and stock option programs. If this could be gathered into a single "Voting Block" it would be extremely powerful. (This is espically true if it were possible to sell & buy stock based on who's anual meeting was coming up.) It should be possible to even place insiders in boards and start running some of our own companies.
...) but there are a lot of places where we seem to generally have agreement and we seem have a lot more understanding of the "New" issues than any other group.
/.) to discuss some unique approaches to changing the world and reintegrating ourselves into world politics.
How about a party where its canidates were bound by contract to place all the information they come across in a day on the web, and to always act as specified by party members on the web. As close as we can get to true democracy. We all know this is technologically difficult (espically security), but not impossible. The dissemenation of information and the voting could take place through a moderation system like
Secondly, how about we adjust how the corperations work. Simply between the readers of
Simply forming a technologically adept party might have it's advantages. There are places where we can't agree at all (environment, corporate freedom vs taxes,
If nothing else, I'd love to see a forum set up (again, perhaps like
bk
Can technology crerate a truer democracy? Surely. For the first time in American history we have the potentail for a true Atehnian Democracy. No parties, no representatives, just country wide votes on political issues. The technology is obviosuly here. There are many ways to do this, but one way would be to have rerpesentatvies of various factions debtae issues on a public TV network, and then let all interested members of society vote via the net. Thsoe that had no hoem computer or other web device could be given a "minitel" like device or allowed to vote via touch-tone.
Now WILL it happen? Ofcourse not. The first job of any beaurcracy is self-preservation. Furthermore I'm not even convicned it SHOULD happen. Contrary to what they teach you in high school, distance and communication were not the only consideratiosn when the representative system was set up by our founders. Though opinion was divided one contingent felt strongly that rule directly by the amsses would only lead to chaos and desintegration of an ordered society.
Alexander Hamilton said, "The masses are asses."
I've seen little to dispell that notion, personally.
Over the post-civil war years, Americans have been on an unended quest to trash the republican system that was brilliantly crafted.
Several steps have been taken that have resulted in complete alienation.
1. Obsession with Judicial review and the Supreme Court's power and responsibility to interpret the Constitution.
2. Direct Election of Senators
3. Universal Sufferage (I would argue in SUPPORT of "negro sufferage" (voting rights regardless of race) and women sufferage, Universal Sufferage is a DIFFERENT concept) - no qualifications to vote
4. Constitutionally limiting the President to two terms
5. Lowering the voting age to 18
6. Post Watergate fundraising limits
7. Presidential primary system
The key thing with each of these issues is the shift from a republic to a democracy, and with each one them resulting in more apathy. Each step of the way, more power has been turned to the common people.
This was a mistake. The two party system worked when the parties were actual parties. They actively recruited people, each town was a two newspaper town (Philadelphia Democrat and Philadelphia Whig, for example), and you were really involved with your party. You'd attend meetings for the party, pay dues, etc. You were involved, and you would try to sign up others to your cause. This was an engaging process. You would send representatives to fight over your presidential candidate, etc.
With the removal of the parties as real organizations, it's a joke. Their are die-hard partisans, but it doesn't make any sense. I am a registered Republican because my state is a closed primary state, but if I didn't care about the primaries (which only the actual partisans should care about), there would be no point in registering.
Besides, why should someone who isn't a strong Republican help pick their nominee. Essentially, we've neutralized politics.
Instead of allowing the politically active to get involved and recruit their neighbor, we've trashed grassroots activism and replaced it with television.
Direct Election of senators DESTROYED state governments, because it let Washington go amuck. The expansion of the federal government at the expense of the states would be less of a problem if the state governments were directly represented.
Fundraising limits (not indexed to inflation, doh!) has resulted in a silly mess of different sides raising money through fake organizations. People that would like to be involved are limited in their involvement. This has saved the parties (soft money is necessary, therefore the national parties remain relavent), but hampered the nation.
You can't run without money, and you can't get money without soft money through the party... good luck running as an independant.
We wanted to equalize everyone, and we did. As a result, the politically active class shrunk (no incentive to be involved anymore), and stopped recruiting others.
Alex
Thanks for your reply.
I'm not saying first ladies previously had no influence upon their husbands' doings, but as I pointed out, it became more "out in the open", as you put it. Therefore, it was much more noticeable than in past years.
I realize that we do not directly vote for cabinet positions, Supreme Court justices, etc., but we do so indirectly through our Congressmen. Presidential appointments must be approved by Congress. This is where I have the beef- if Clinton (or any other President) wishes to have his wife play such a large role in his job, then he needs to do it the right way.
In reply to your final query, I have an interest in both fields. I'm not the most knowledgable in either, but I enjoy discussion and learning about each.
Thanks again for your reply.
Love, Stu
One of the biggest turn-offs to politics, the way I see it, is the fact that, at least in the Clinton Administration, people we didn't elect were running things. Case in point: as Smitty825 pointed out, Clinton put his wife in charge of putting together a new health care system. I'd love to see the statistics showing how many voters chose Hillary Clinton to be in the White House. I'm curious how many knew she was even running!
Appointments to offices by the President must be approved by Congress. This has to hold true in all cases.
Love, Stu
Speaking of revisionism...
If anything, it was the French, Spanish and Dutch attacking the British on other fronts (and for their own reasons, very little concerning democracy and independence) that weakened the British presence in the colonies and allowing for American victories. To say nothing of French military support of Washington's forces.
Americans didn't open any kind of whomp-ass on the British. The British simply found themselves with more urgent matters to deal with than a rather expensive revolution. In fact, it was a full two years after Cornwallis' defeat that the war finally ended. Not exactly a decisive victory, by any means.
Try here for a little information about your own country's history.
I'm a Canadian, and I don't pay any taxes to Britain either. Does that mean I won a decisive victory against the British? Or does the fact that US citizens don't owe any taxes to the French and Spanish, also former colony owners, mean that you beat them, too?
It's not that the British lost the war, or in what fashion, that bothers me. It's the perpetuation of this John Wayne-esque "we kicked Britain's ass!" myth that annoys me. The American Revolution was won due to the hard work and peserverence of Washington and his troops, aided only by the occasional lucky break until finally the French provided aid. That shows admirable qualities, ones which deserve to be emulated. But lying to yourselves and others about how the Revolution was won is an insult to your forebears. It's not that the British lost the war, or in what fashion, that bothers me. It's the perpetuation of this John Wayne-esque "we kicked Britain's ass!" myth that annoys me. The American Revolution was won due to the hard work and peserverence of Washington and his troops, aided only by the occasional lucky break until finally the French provided aid. That shows admirable qualities, ones which deserve to be emulated. But lying to yourselves and others about how the Revolution was won is an insult to your forebears.
Can't people even handle a compliment around here? I was trying to say that weathering overwhelming odds, with only luck to go on, until they found strong allies was admirable in the rebels.
Regardless of the participation of the French, the fact remains that America revolted agains the most powerful empire in the world, and won.
Nonsense. You cannot view the Revolutionary war without considering the French, Spanish and Dutch. Without them, the Americans could never have won. Your comment makes it seem like we can leave them out of the equation altogether, which is ridiculous.
The Americans won against the most powerful empire in the world because they had the help of three of the other most powerful nations in the world. Had it not been for those nations' personal enmity against Britain, the Americans would have been left high and dry.
I always hate it when foreigners equate John Wayne with their worst perceptions of American nationalistic fervor.
Fair enough. I'll be certain to form my future memory of the man from his role in . , complete with droopy fu manchu moustache. =)
Though technology may be a contributing factor to the problems of our democracy, I don't think it deserves half the credit that Katz gives it. Katz seems to think that the reason that the political parties are able to get away with conventions that are no longer what they used to be has everything to do with TV and nothing to do with the apathetic masses of America who do nothing about it
Think about it, if people would get off their collective lazy asses and vote, there would not be this problem. Instead, people prefer to stay in, watch a bit of TV, maybe go out to a movie, rather than vote and then complain about it for the next year or so, telling everyone about how so-and-so is a dumbass and shouldn't be allowed out of his house, much less hold political power -- yet they continue to not vote and not do anything about the problem.
If Americans as a whole would go out and vote (even if their decision is half-assed and not totally thought out), half of this problem would go away. The other half will have to wait until Americans actually think before they vote (but I'm not sure that happens in any democracy, or has ever happened period)... once both of these things happen, then and only then will the problem of our quasi-Democracy go away.
While I am an American, I do have a different view on politics than the average American.
...And to talk about Katz's point about people not voting, the Republician party *wants* that. (FYI, I'm a Republican because I believe that we should strive for a smaller, more efficient govt, but that's my humble opinion & respect the beliefs of others, too) Anyway, election data has shown that as the number of people that vote increase, the more likley people are going to vote for the percieved liberal party. For example, there are a few countries where voting is almost mandatory, and in those elections, the most liberal party almost always wins.
Now politicians will have a tougher time side-stepping issues or just focusing on issues (or dirt) raised by the opponent. They'll now have to consider the real issues
IMHO, Politicians talk about issues just to play the role of Presidential Canidate. People rarely vote for people based on the issues that they bring up. For example, the tallest Presidential canidate has won every election since the advent of TV (and maybe longer than that...Oh, yea, George W. Bush is the tallest presidental canidate this year).
Also, when a Politician gets elected, they almost always try & implement the issues that they campaigned for during the election. Almost always, the Americans people get upset when the Government tries to change things. Case in point:
1) Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992. He promised a new Health Care System. He put his wife Hillary in charge of revamping the system, and after they spent millions of dollars on the research of the system, they tried to implement it. Americans complained how it was the worst idea ever, and as far as I know, it hasn't been implemented yet.
2) In 1996, the Republicans were elected to the House of Representives based on the "Contract w/ America." When they tried to implement many of the changes that they promised, Americans balked, and it cost several dozen congressman their jobs in the next election.
Doh!
Whoops, sorry, I forgot to close the italics tag =-)
Doh!
Actually the flush toilet was invented until the late 1900s, by a man called Thomas Crapper working in London, after Queen Victoria complained about the poor state of toilets in the UK. Which is where the word "crap" comes from.
and don't even try to enshrine technology or heighten the sacredness of technology. Technology don't speak. Technology is neutral. It is the people that do the talking.
Some web browsers and graphics systems (e.g. X11) substitute ?????'s for glyphs not defined in the current combination of encoding and font. Katz's articles are probably written in Codepage 1252, which is Latin-1 (ISO 8859-1) with different characters in the 0x0080 to 0x009f range (which is normally used for control characters on text terminals). AFAIK, the "smart quote" marks are in that range, and it confuses X11's font manager.
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
Individual citizens do not govern, they elect representatives who reflect their views, values, etc. to govern.
Representatives' voting records do not necessarily reflect the views of their constituents. They can say one thing (e.g. pro-life) to get elected and another (pro-baby-murder) once in office.
There is always this danger.<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game!
Will I retire or break 10K?
It's one thing to say, "Hey, look at us, we have webcams!" It's another to say, "Hey, look at us, we're using the technology to supplement our concerns over the issues people care about." It really doesn't matter how much of a technocrat a candidate is, that's not why someone gets voted into office. It's the issues that matter the most. Using the technology in your favor isn't as important, but you had better believe that it can help.
Remember Jesse Ventura? His appeal to everyone out there was that he a take-shit-from-nobody kind of guy. He spoke his mind on the issues, and made no apologies for it. Some people didn't like what he had to say, but they have him credit for having the balls to say what he said. That's the main reason why he was so successful in Minnesota. What also made him successful was his JesseNet. It's really nothing more than a glorified mailing list, but it was certainly able to band together Ventura supporters to go out and promote the guy.
It doesn't matter if you're a technocrat or not, being one doesn't guarantee victory. We don't elect people because their website has the most webcams or java applets. We elect people because of their concern (or lack thereof) of the issues we care about most. I doubt Ventura is a big technocrat, yet he still won over two established candidates. And it was because of the issues. As soon as candidates start listening to and focusing on issues people care about most, then maybe more people will get involved with the political process.
And on an unrelated note, I'm surprised Al Gore isn't embracing the technology in his campaign. C'mon, he did invent the Internet, right?
--
--
The real Raunchola isn't cool enough to have any imposters
They are disgusted with the current canidates. You have Ozone Al (I invented the internet) Gore who brings you lines such as "I never lived in the 20th century. Then you have George Bush who isn't the sharpest tool in the shed. People see these two and say the hell with voting.
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Everyone should be familiar with the actual workings of democracy from grade school. Back then we called it "majority rules!" And while it was frequently invoked, I remember that it was favored most by the popular and those who tended to think and move in herds. It usually resulted in mediocre results, such as when we voted to go to the park because neither the Museum of Art nor the Zoo commanded a majority.
It discriminated against minorities, by which I mean me and all the other nerds.
Later, those memories provided me with an empathetic understanding of why the Founding Fathers disdained democracy as "mob rule". Their answer to decentralization was to allow natural and historic subdivisions to appoint "subject matter experts" whose opinions and activities were closely monitored. And who were subject to recall if their performance demanded it.
That model was largely diminished following the War Between the States, and had all but disappeared due to the centralizing effects of the Great Depression, the New Deal and two World Wars. Information became hidden, and to a large degree, controlled. The media of transmittal -- the Post Office, the Newspapers, Radio and Television networks -- all became more and more indistiguishable from each other. The information available to citizens became remarkably homogeneous.
All that is changing.
I do not believe that we should attempt to use technology to "democratize" our society. Certainly not by making it easy to vote, online, on each and every question. The inevitable combination of the slashdot effect and online voting in such a scenario is frightening in its implications. Instead, we should harness the technologies at hand to increase the understanding of the citizens and enhance their oversight of our public servants.
For too long they have had the freedom to do what they want without having to account for their positions or their actions. The limitations imposed upon them by our Constitution have been ignored so long that it is now acceptable for people who have sworn to uphold and defend the rights protected therein to routinely advocate their elimination! The current president is on record many times decrying the Bill of Rights as "radical" and even "maybe too radical".
I believe that such positions will be swept away as technology returns to us the tools to pick good public servants, and to adequately monitor their actions. We have already seen some successes along these lines. The public outcry against the "Know Your Customer" campaign comes to mind, as does the spread of strong encryption and the awareness of privacy rights. These are the appropriate roles for technology. Enhancing the intelligence and oversight of the electorate. Not chaning the means by which people announce their wishes. There is no way to satisfy them . . . that is the nature of wanting. Not by allowing fluid majorities to redistribute the accumulated wealth of society . . . in such an arrangement, someone will always suffer. I do not believe a wholesale change is required; I think we should make our government work as designed, and our technolgy is an important tool to make that happen.
There will be some need for people to take a submitted bill and reform it into a properly worded, considered bill that would perform the intended action of the bill. Some laws have had unintended side-effects, but if the unwashed write them, it would be more of that.
The lack of elected politicians would reduce crime :).
But not having elected politicians would give paper pushers much more power.
Fight Spammers!
One of the things I've always loved about the internet is it's degree of accessibility to the individual, not only for getting information, but for disseminating it. If you want to get your ideas heard on television, it's going to cost you a lot more money than a web page or a post on usenet. Consequently, the views expressed are going to be those of the wealthy and powerful. The problem with this, obviously, is that the wealthy, powerful individuals and companies are not generally going to have the same interests as the much larger group of non-wealthy, non-powerful individuals. Television primarily promotes the status-quo. Why would those groups want anything to change, when they are doing so well?
Unfortunately, many of those who could benefit from political change are buying into it. Lots of people believe everything they see on T.V.
Technology like the internet, on the other hand, though it is becoming more and more commercial, is still much more accessible to the little guy. For me, it has almost completely replaced television broadcasts.
The internet is host to a much broader range of views and opinions from a much larger sampling of social and economic classes.
So, I guess that my main point is (sorry it took so long) that whether or not technology can promote democracy depends on whether that technology is in the hands of the people.
I don't think that technology in the hands of the politicians really promotes democracy as much. It is just as important for the politicians to listen to the people as vice-versa.
Many posters have already brought up the point that we don't really have a democracy and wouldn't really want one. I think it is important for everyone to be heard, but for no one's rights to be trampled in the process. The danger in a true Democracy is that while the majority may benefit, the minorities likely will not.
Personally, the internet has encouraged me to be more political. I keep up-to date on the issues, and often send email and faxes to my senators. Unfortunately, I generally get a form-letter response saying thank-you, but I disagree with you (and of course not responding at all to any specific points included in my original message). I think that experiences like that have done more to discourage people from taking part in politics than anything else. It's not pleasant to be thought of as nothing more than another check on a public opinion poll.
I am going to vote this year, but not for either Bush or Gore.
When books burn, people are next.
while politicians and their parties compete furiously to see who can do less and spend less.
What planet are you living on, Katz? Politicians only rein in their spending programs when forced to on pain of being voted out of office. They're not spending less (of our money!), they're just doing less useful things with it.
"Research is what I am doing when I don't know what I am doing." -- Wernher von Braun
About the reason why people arnt interested in politics.. IMHO, it maybe because it now has more to do with lobbyists & money than to the average citizen, or maybe because people are happy the way things are & don't feel the need to get involved?
-N
I agree it'll change politics.. Already has. .I personally can't count how many political conversations I've had online. Also, politics isn't just the presidential election, like jon katz made it sound.. you're never going to find a president who has the exact same beliefs as yours, so you have to do some pushing to do what you believe needs to be done.
"I don't want the world, I just want your half"
Could it be that he doesn't fit neatly into your little "luddite" and "technocrat" boxes?
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
vote.com rushlimbaugh.com drudgereport.com newsmax.com
Skiers and Riders -- http://www.snowjournal.com
Advoagto favors early members - look at the discussions and you'll see the same people doing all the posting. The early folks could handle reading each other's posts and crediting accordingly. Now that there are so many users, what is the motivation for accredited users to read new posts and accredit all the new users?
Advogato simply makes the process of being heard and participating altogether too exhausting. Slashdot may have its weenies (me among them), but most of the good posters here wouldn't have the patience to jump through the advogato hoops.
If I had to nail down your perspective neatly, I'd simply have to conclude that you're simply a habitual complainer.
As we advance as a society, finding new memes of thought and expression, our democracy grows ever more diverse. Granted, some memes have a more readily available political voice (read: Money) and with that we move away from democracy and back toward the oligarchy/tyranny we broke away from when the founders of this nation promised their lives and their sacred honor to a cause they believed in.
It seems to me that we, as a society at large, must eschew the monetary contributions of large party politics for a smaller more diverse political following. For the greater part of the history of the United States, we've had two or three major political parties. Now some say that is what has allowed us to "get things done" but has it allowed us to do things at all? Maybe.
My biggest concern in the modern political realm is that we, as a nation, will leave our political power stagnant in the rushing waters of international technological change. I think that if anything, current politics is completely out of touch with the plausible in terms of technology. Just look at the metaphor: Information Superhighway. How many people would like to see the person who created that stupid fscking metaphor shot? I would. I'm tired of the causification of American politics, whether it be Napster or DeCSS or what have you. We cannot use these as political vehicles if we ever expect to gain respect from the political community.
Okay, so you're getting out your flame thrower, just lay off the trigger a second, I have a point. We sound like whiners when we press our agenda on those points, but still we cry "Information wants to be free". We need not to distance ourselves from politics, but perhaps to create our own party, as a technically inclined society. We need a party that presses our agenda, since we definitely aren't represented by either major party now.
But what would our party be? Well, we wouldn't take stands on the social issues of welfare/affirmative action, or on abortion, those issues are important, but not crucial to our platform. Instead lets discuss freedom of speech and information on the web. The other parties are based on some very specific social programs and issues, but have no technology position to speak of.
As a nation we need this sort of major reform. That much is obvious.
So there I was. Naked. In a refrigerator. With a potroast on my knees. Smokin a cigar. That's when it got REALLY weird.
I take it your wife isn't much of an anthropologist, then; the Romans, Hindu and Chinese all had flush toilets about 1500 years ago.
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Looks like someone's sleeping on the couch tonight ....
-- the most controversial site on the Web
Good thing:o rozation of everything including bandwidth use will result in more avenues of revenue for corporations and the inclination to watch your every move which will lead to big brother syndrom.
The ability to be able to vote from your computer or even shortly from your handheld device or cell phone can only help to increase voter turn out or *turn on*.
Bad thing:
Information->infomercial->commercialization->corp
Conclusion The good thing will cancel out the bad thing since it allows the emergence and success of third parties like reform party (yuk) or the green party (woohoo) that will curtail corporate abuse.
Side note: Personaly I can not live without internet access or information access any longer. If it were to go away now, I will wither and die.
But then again that's what every drug addict thinks before letting go of the substance.
Maybe its just because I have an active interest in politics, but I certainly don't have the same pessimistic outlook as you. I vote in every election, and technology in general and the net in particular has been a boon. I can now easily research the qualifications, positions, funding sources, and prior voting records for every candidate. I listen to a lot of politically-oriented talk radio and the hosts will post links to critical information that they use in their broadcasts. The local talk show that I listen to regularly runs a chat room in parallel, with the host using our comments to steer the discussion or bring up new topics. Plus it also uses email and website postings to whip up community interest to fight the bureaucrats and sundry other malefactors of government and business.
If anything, I see the net as making democracy less centralized and subject to manipulation by 'The Corporate Party'. Your expressed concerns appear to me to be more appropriate to the situation immediately before the dawn of the net. I think what you're seeing now is the inertia of that old world still stumbling along, a world that is about to realize that the rules have changed.
Actually, thanks to the recent DeCSS ruling, I think we are more likely to blame politics for our disconnection with technology.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Don't feel too bad, the same thing happened to us in Viet Nam 200 years later.
As for whether it was a decisive victory... I haven't paid any taxes to the British crown lately, so I guess that means you lost... completely. Pretty cut and dried, really.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
No war was ever won without luck and allies.
Regardless of the participation of the French, the fact remains that America revolted agains the most powerful empire in the world, and won. There's nothing "John Wayne-esque" about it.
(As an aside, I always hate it when foreigners equate John Wayne with their worst perceptions of American nationalistic fervor. He was involved in a lot of great movies about the horrors of war, the plight of the native tribes, and the universal value of humanity. Not a lot of people know that John Ford was the first movie director ever made an honorary tribal member, and probably was the first to be allowed to film on reservation land. Inspite of all this, he is forever branded as a metaphor for American jingoism, just because a handful of his better known war movies dare to express patriotism.)
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
'nuff said.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
Seriously, though, if you mean "what term should I use to collectively refer to all of the people in North America and all of the people in South America"?
Well, what would you use to refer to all of the people in Europe and all of the people in Australia?
Answer: there isn't one word for them, because it's two completely different groups of people.
Same thing. In a pinch you could say "North and South Americans" (not to be confused with northern and southern Americans, representing both sides of the Mason-Dixon line in the USA), or you can just say "North Americans and South Americans".
In any case, calling Americans "USians" is just stupid. We are not from a place caled USia. We are from a country called America. End of debate.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I never said there was a continent called "America". Quite the opposite, in fact. I was dispelling the deranged notion that there was one.
What I said was that the continent that the USA is on is called "North America", not "America".
Anyway it's not self-centered to want your country to be properly identified. I don't go around calling people from London "UKians".
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I think you meant to say "anarcho-communism", which is a silly pipe-dream, but at least it's not self-contradictory.
Personally, I think anarchy is a really bad idea, for the simple reason that there is no force in place to prevent a subsequent rise of Feudalism. Any time you have anarchy, winners will emerge and start grabbing for power.
I prefer the libertarian philosophy of a government which is limited by constitutional mandates to protect the rights of the individual.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
There is no such thing as a "USian". People who live in the United States of America are called "Americans".
Other people living on the same continent (like Canadians and Mexians) can be referred to as "North Americans", but not "Americans", because the contintent they live on is "North America", not "America". Many Canadians and Mexicans are proud of being Canadians and Mexicans and would prefer you don't think of them as "Americans".
For the entire history of our nation, beginning when we opened a can of whoop-ass on King George's redcoats, we have called ourselves "Americans". Your "politically-correct" revisionism is not going to change that.
Now stop being so pretensious.
Unfortunately in capitalism people are seen less as individuals with their own special contributions to make,
Seen by whom? Certainly not by corporations. Corporations are artificial economic constructs. They don't "see" anything. If there is a failure of perception it is yours, in that capitalism has proven to be more favorable to the individual than any collectivist system, for the obvious reason that capitalism is not collectivist.
than as parts of an assembly line, valued for little more than what they produce.
Unlike socialism, where people are valued for... what they produce. Or communism, where people are valued for... what they produce.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
When political power moved from the individual to the group, and from local control to state, federal and global governments is when the populace lost interest. Quite frankly the average citizen has about as much input into the current process as his pet dog (actually the dog might have better representation). Take you average Joe off the street and place him before any senator/congressperson and see how much input he actually has. This was exemplified well when Meryl Streep had more input than a scientist who knows what he is talking (Alar scare). The process is broken because people are prevented from being involved. I have two simple rules that would fix this problem. First, no nonvoting entity could contribute money to any political candidate. PACs, Unions, Corporations and the like would be prohibited from making any monetary contributions to any canditates. Second, members of one branch of government would be forever prevented from serving in any other branch of government. Lawyers and Judges would be prehibited from serving in the Legislature and Executive branches. Congressmen and Senators would be prevented from serving in the executive and Judicial branches. And people who serve the Executive branch would be also prohibited from serving in the Legislative and Judicial branches. These two simple rules would keep the powers of government seperated, and allow the average citizen to retain more power. Scary thought isn't it?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Not to split hairs, but you really need to define technology when you're using it so broadly here. Do you mean the internet? Computers in general? The system that routes an ambulance carrying the right blood type to the scene of your accident? (apologies)
I think I'd agree with you if you replaced 'technology' with 'television'.
Hmm, come to think of it, when we're all hip deep in 150-year-olds, we probably will think technology's a problem.
--------------------------------"I always try to avoid the term 'language', but it is certainly a complex communication system."
"I always try to avoid the term 'language', but it is certainly a complex communication system."
-Vincent Janik
What would keep politicians from simply wording legislation in a way that only a professional politician (lawyer, etc.) could understand? How much of your time should you have to spend keeping up on every topic that comes along?
I'd love to see an enlightened population, but representation is necessary, and will only become more so as our society grows more complex.
"I always try to avoid the term 'language', but it is certainly a complex communication system."
"I always try to avoid the term 'language', but it is certainly a complex communication system."
-Vincent Janik
Now, today, when you look at the Thomas Web site you see thousands of bills that go way beyond the limits of survival and growth [management]. Morality in technology. Ecology. The War on Some Drugs. The War on Some People (think DCMA, anti-discrimination, hate speech). The Welfare of the Corporations. The Business of Government.
And people wonder why the population of the United States is turned off to politics? When politics is focused again on survival and management of growth, then it will become small enough to be grasped by normal people.
We don't need 1/5th of the people and 1/6th of the Gross Domestic Product dedicated to having one person crack the whip over another.
Even religions know better than to expand core teaching beyond a single easily-carried book.
Jon, I've reread your post twice, and I keep getting the feeling that your post has this sort of plotline:
/. readers? Given this article, you could have had links to the EFF, or to the Democracy Project, both of which are directly concerned with the issues you raise and certainly could use support from the /. community.
"Well, it looks like the plane is going down, we seem to be losing altitude rapidly, and the pilots apparently don't want to share the task of piloting with us, but somebody will figure out how to keep the plane from crashing some time in the future."
I'm not trying to imply that politicians/lobbyists are like the pilots of our societal airplane. What I am trying to say is that very often your articles give good examples of what's going wrong, and then contain absolutely no follow through except for vague prognostications about the future. Why don't you ever include any proposed plans of action for us
So Jon, instead of collecting a paycheck for merely writing more filler for the "eternal debate," as you phrase it, why not finish your articles with concrete suggested plans of action for us to consider? Maybe that way we can band together to save us all from a "crash landing."
Unhappy? Kill your television.
Nothing ruined democracy in the United States.
There ISN'T a democracy in the United States, or at least there isn't supposed to be.
This country is a republic. What does that mean? It means that the only thing citizens are supposed to vote for is their leaders, not laws.
Somewhere I cannot recall now I heard this quote: "A true democracy will never work, for once the people learn they can vote themselves money, they will vote themselves out of a government." There has never been a more true statement! The only way democrats get into office at all is by buying votes from people by deed, liberal licencing (by this I mean making things legal which should not be), or by government programs such as healthcare or welfare.
Please do not think that I mean democrats are the only tyrants I see. I see the money behind the republican candidates as well as anyone. But the money behind the republicans is corporate (or private) money used for promotion of the candadates, and so does not fall into this discussion. What does make me angry is the "Pork Spending" that republicans are so famous for. They pay back their debts with tax dollars in the form of contracts.
In truth, the only hope I see for our country is the internet. A place where people can actually promote candidates other than those lauded by the parties. It will not happen soon, but it will happen. If people who have not written letters in years are suddenly writing hundreds of emails each week then people who have not voted in years will start voting if given the chance to do so online.
My $0.02 will always be worth more than your â0.02, so
Lowering prices and raising ease of use is the way technology democratizes itself. Currently, computer technology is in its infancy. Should it be surprising that the early adopters are primarily white male geek types? These are the kinds of people that currently design this technology. Is it a geek conspiracy or just a reflection of the way engineers see the world?
Producers want to sell to the widest possible audience so improvements in interface and pricing will continue. It will then be up to the users to build the communities that work, whether real or virtual.
Technology will not replace the choices that individuals choose to make or not to make. If individuals are alienated from politics, they have made the choice to stop voting, or they keep voting for the same old two parties.
We get the government that we deserve. We have earned the mess we are in because of ignorance and apathy, not technology.
Answers were a lot easier in the old days. The politics was brutally simple and ugly compared to today. Women stayed home. Minorities kept their place. Gays ... you did not even think about, much less talk about. It is easier for a populace to be involved in a political game with simple -- if stupid and cruel -- rules.
Fast forward to today. Every single aspect of politics has become more complicated from the economy to domestic and world affairs. Politics is no longer a dramatic conflict between a few simple philosophies. It has become a complex amalgam of ever shifting coalitions. Nothing is simple about it any more.
Some may say they have given up on the "hopeless political process," but I think that's mostly sour grapes and laziness. I doubt there are any people who really are above politics as the game is played now. I can easily believe that there are a lot of people who can't figure it out -- even when it's not that hard as in this year.
In general, technology doesn't cause the symptoms described. Rather, it enables the exposure of the problems. The more people believe (correctly or not) that they are powerless or can't affect anything or don't have the right to have an opinion, etc., the more they will use the technology available to pursue self-gratification alone. For example, as pointed out, technology could be very useful in resolving local neighborhood issues, but let's face it, it's hard to get any neighborhood together on anything, anymore. There are many causes, but one of them is that civil discussion is not trained or modeled (e.g., TV talk shows) or apparently valued (same e.g.). To engage in a neighborhood activity holds more danger than it used to. This isn't to say that a particular technology is morally neutral, necessarily (a position I used to hold). Certain technologies afford certain uses, and thus lead to certain preferred action. It's not that certain technologies can't be used for a moral use, it's just that it's a lot harder. Given that, I think most of what this post is referring to as "technology" doesn't necessarily afford immoral uses primarily (except for maybe TV :-).
First off, like a couple other posters I want to emphasize that this country is not a Democracy (where the laws and decisions are made by the people) but is instead a Republic (where the laws and decisions are made by officials elected by the people).
Some people see that as a problem, because it allows for tyranny. Bush and Gore agree on a lot of issues, some of which the majority of the voters might disagree with. Others see this as a blessing, because some of the population is outright stupid, and the majority doesn't know all the relevant facts about the law and politics.
I would be tempted to side with the former, and say that anyone who cares enough about something to vote for it should be allowed to, and those votes should rule this country. BUT: The people get their info from the media, which is even more corrupt than the politicians, and the info you get it what ultimately determines your decision. So true Democracy would put the media in charge. I don't claim that this is because stupid people believe the media they're fed. I believe most of the media I'm fed. Sure I have a healthy dose of cynicism and skepticism, but I just don't have time to go find everything out for myself. I have to trust the media to some extent, or else find myself entirely cut off from society.
So I think that the only people who should be allowed to make laws and decisions for the government are people who have spent their lives learning about the law and the government, and who DO have the time to find out most of the relevant information themselves. Okay, I accept the Republic. Unfortunately this has gone too far, and it's devolved into two corrupt political parties. So what's the solution?
Well it's not so simple that the average citizen (okay, I may not be quite so average, but I'm not a lawyer or a politician) can come up with a flawless solution, but my suggestion would be something that enabled a large quantity of free advertising in print, radio, television, and even the net, for all candidates on the ballot. Next the elimination of the electoral voting system, followed by runoff elections between all ballot candidates except the one with the least number of votes. Yes, this means we would have to have like 9 presidential elections. But it's worth it. The alternatives are mob-rule, the acceptance of a corrupt two-party system, or a single election that goes to the highest number of votes, which is the system that elected Hitler. If you don't do runoffs, then all the "good" candidates split the votes and allow the election of a single "bad" candidate.
Lot's of good points here. I would just say that for myself, the reason I don't vote is because in a representative form of democracy, you are forced to compromise when choosing a candidate. Say for example, that you are pro-choice but favor gun control. However, of the two candidates you have to pick from, one is pro-choice less gun control, and the other is pro-life pro gun control. Therefore, you are forced to make compromises when choosing a candidate, even if you had more than two choices. And who is to say that the candidate will actually vote the way he says once he is elected to office? Let's assume our candidate will keep his word and vote the way he promised to. In the politcal process today there is a lot of compromising going on to pass legislation. Therefore, our candidate might have to make compromises, and he will do so on what he feels is the most important issue. Using his priorities, not yours. So we compromise in choosing a candidate, and our candidate will probably have to make compromises in order to do anything. So what are we left with? How much of our voice actually carries forth into the lawmaking process? I myself would like to see a more direct form of democracy, where simple people can vote directly on some legislation via the internet. People who do not have access can still go somewhere public and vote online (or use an 800 number). That way it is up to me to research and vote on issues I care about, and let slide the ones I do not. Right now I am doing nothing, unfortunately. And if us software guys can get good enough in the years ahead, possibly design some intelligent software agents that can query us on certain issues, form a profile of sorts, provide us with additional information on demand, and finally monitor pending legislation and vote by proxy for us using the profile. Of course security would be an issue, but hey it's just an idea....
This brings up a good point. Why doesn't anyone build an open-source senator, congressman or even a free (as in beer) president?
The ones we have now are old, severely limiting and _way_ too expensive for the home user.
--
Pokéthulhu
Gotta catch you all!
Actually, Bush isn't the tallest. I'm not sure about the little guys, but Gore is much taller than Bush.
Bush may *appear* taller, but only because he chooses his camera angles carefully.
I expect Gore's ranking to rise after televised debates start, even if he somehow manages to make himself sound less intelligent than Dubbya.
88
Maybe the key to knowing candidates in the personal sense is knowing them in the Biblical sense. I mean, Washington, D.C. is full of *ahem* houses of ill repute, right?
I'd bet my bottom dollar that some of those ladies would be able to describe a candidate's personality fairly well, even given their limited experience.
"Man, when that McCain says he's going to control Congress, he means he is going to _control_ Congress!"
88
There have been a couple of times in the last year when I've wished to post to Advogato, but unfortunately I can't since I'm not "certified", no matter how important a point I was going to make.
As a working system Advogato encourages a level of "cliqueyness" (not a word I know) that a site like /. doesn't. I'm not saying trust models are wrong, but this is a real problem - how to build trust for unknown users without letting the idiots ruin it?
The trouble with the argument that technology is to blame for a lack of interest in politics is that these are issues that don't really have a direct causal connection - it's not fair to say that because technology is improving people are paying less and less attention to politics.
But, it cannot be argued that the increasing march of technology has, in general, turned people away from the old USian small community ideal where people knew all of their neighbours. Indeed, this is not so much a problem with the US, although its effects are seen here to a greater degree than anyone else (perhaps due to its corporate-orientated economy in which people tend to get pushed into second place), but it is a global problem that has been ongoing for centuries.
Technology has made us less and less able to relate to other people, and indeed to want to relate to them. In fact, whilst it has improved our conditions of living and made the transition from hunter-gatherer subsistance possible, it has also allowed us to concentrate on acquisitiveness at the cost of others, the roots of modern capitalism. And today, with the final death of any opposing systems, capitalism is seen as being somehow "right" for us. And capitalism is firmly linked to technology, made possible by such innovations as mass production.
Unfortunately in capitalism people are seen less as individuals with their own special contributions to make, than as parts of an assembly line, valued for little more than what they produce. Indeed, modern economics treats everything as capital, including people. Is it little wonder that people are disaffected and unhappy, when their sole worth is considered to be what they produce?
As people get less and less happy with their situation, they are of course going to become jaded and disullusioned. And politics is going to be seen as the root cause of this, since politicians have the perception of power, if not the substance.
Why would people care about politics in this situation? In fact, they're more likely to come to mistaken views about the evils of "Big Government" than the true evil - capitalism, and it's partner technology.
My point was about welfare, not healthcare. As a matter of fact, Britain spends about 18% of GDP on welfare payments *excluding* healthcare. This is the real economic problem for Britain.
Technology is not disconnecting the people from the political process. What is happening in American politics is that:
1. The party machines and lobby groups are growing more sophisticated and are extending their control at the expense of that of the private citizen;
2. Government has over the past decades extended its reach into areas of private and community life that were previously left alone because it is frequently felt that increasingly complex matters require increasingly detailed regulation;
3. The success of the US economy has increased national and average personal wealth significantly, and this has inevitably engendered a sense of guilt and social responsibility towards the less fortunate. This manifests itself in a consensus that public welfare provision should be expanded (by whatever degree) - inevitably, this means more government, more funds, more scope for manipulation, and decreased political diversity as the consensus on political acceptability narrows.
Each of these leads to a more complex government apparatus, which is of course going to attempt to preserve its own livelihood. It also means more jobs & influence for the mayor's/governor's/president's buddies, so the average politician is going to be disinclined to suggest radical reform.
The range of choices open to the voter diminishes, and so fewer voters bother to cast their ballot (or even register to vote)
This process has nothing to do with technology. It happened in Europe in the early part of the 20th century, and is now happening in America. It took Britain 50 years to build a complex welfare system that imposed (and still imposes) a huge drain on the national economy, and it took another 40 years to realise that it had to be reformed and scaled back. This is still going on, and will continue for years to come.
It is of course possible to arrange for frequent county, state and federal plebiscites on a variety of matters, and it is easier to do this using the internet than with formal voting stations. However, the idea of representative democracy is that the elected representatives of the people make the decisions on their behalf, and such widespread popular voting would make this system irrelevant. In any case, would you want to have to vote three times a week every week?
The cause of the problem is not technology. The answer is not technology. The cause is bigger government, and the answer is smaller government. Government at any level should only be doing what (a) only government (and not the people themselves) can do, and (b) to do this only when it is actually necessary (and not just desirable).
A real problem with technology and politics is that the people who don't understand computers are labelling people who do as terrorists. Before the whole country can operate around the Net, the old dogs in charge need to learn how it works. It would be nice to not have to feel like I'm being watched, just becaise I know how things work.
The trouble isn't a concern for wasting a vote, at least on my part. More the worry is that 3rd party votes will come mostly out of Gore's constituency, thereby allowing Dubya into the oval office. I've said it before, and I will again, that cannot be allowed to happen. Bush should be kept as far from the White House as possible. My conscience doesn't like voting for Gore, but it likes Bush being elected even less.
-={(Astynax)}=-
-={(Astynax)}=-
"Darkness beyond Twilight"
The ultimate democracy is dollar votes. Just like those used for elections they are held by the wise and unwise alike. Each dollar you spend on crappy tech is one less for good tech.
Vote Naked 2000
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
By spending all day and night in a chatroom meeting our neighbors through a monitor.
Anyone else see a dichotomy?
I think the reason that Americans are growing apart and volunteerism is dying is that the economy is worse than it was in the 50's and 60s'. My dad could spend 6 hours a week doing volunteer work, I spend that time keeping up on computers.
The other portals should also give space to the candidates. Maybe slashdot could too.
Long live the internet
Founder's Camp
Founder's Camp
News for non-Nerds. Stuff that matters.
How can technology improve democracy? Through its affect on the media, mostly. Most people don't care about politics because they lack a proper understanding of it - they are spoon-fed 30-second sound bites by the new$ media and base their votes on that.
Want to see people become more interested in politics? Think about this: Napster has 20 million users. If they all voted for one presidential candidate, that candidate would get a huge boost, typically enough to swing the election. Just something to think about.
"Property is theft, therefore theft must be property, right?"
The Conventions used to be a place of real debate. Then, once massive press coverage started the real decisions and king-making moved to "Smoke filled Rooms."
Today we have "Shadow Conventions." But even they have too much spotlight to have any real debate.
I've proposed to my techie friends that the entire legislative process could be utterly transparent in real time using web technology. They thought it was a good idea but would only force law-making even further into back rooms than it is now.
It's like what a Teamster once said, "You don't want to elect the leaders ot the Teamsters Union-- You wouldn't know who was running the place!"
tribs
Your home internet gateway appliance
As for: "...in that capitalism has proven to be more favorable to the individual than any collectivist system...", Oh? I'm sure the people of Sweden (you know that northern european social democracy with the highest standard of living in the world) might argue that with you.
At least in a socialist state they don't consider your fucking health to be a commodity. It is morally bankrupt to let %30 percent of your nations children grow up in poverty when more socialist systems (like Sweden) get that number into the low single digits. All so the rich can stay massively wealthy while holding out the carrot of prosperity to the ill educated masses of poor they produce.
"Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi"
When Katz complains about the lack of interactivity at last week's DNC, that leads me to believe that he was either complacently watching the roboticians from the inside of the Staples Center or on TV. The 'Corporate Parties' definition of interactivity is some links to click on their webpage. Thousands of protesters, including myself, had a different definition at last weeks DNC, which involved pepper spray, batons, concussion grenades, and rubber bullets. My roomate got shot in the back... now that's interactive! Fuck voting... take politics to the streets.
Check out http://la.indymedia.org to get truly interactive with the DNC.
Bababooey to you all !
All the best,
--Bob
I hate to say this, because it will sound like an NRA sound bite but... Democracy is a full time job. We must be ever vigalant to protect what democracy that we have and do all in out power to make our society a more democratic one. For the past few months people have b*tched and moaned about the DMCA and the damage that it has done but how many of those people were actually out fighting against that act before it was passed! How many people are writting there congressmen to ask them to repeal the law? Technology can be the ultimate aid to democracy, more information can be shown to more people faster than ever before but most people don't take advantage of it. We are to busy reading userfriendly and playing diablo rather than checking up on our congressman. If you are going to whine about the fate of technology and democracy get out and do something about it. Whew! I'm glad thats over. The national conventions were a joke because the parties do not want to be embarrased. When we vote in primaries (which everyone should do) we only vote for party delegates, not for the actual people. In the "old days" the delegates that got elected to the convention could vote for anyone they want, not the people we told them to. It would be real bad for a party to say "GW Bush" is our next candidate, and then for all the delegated to get to the convention and elect McCain. The moral of the story... Quit B*tchen and get out and do something!
___________________
___________________
He who laughs last... Thinks slowest