Software for the Grass Roots

An anonymous reader writes "In February at the O'Reilly Digital Democracy Teach-In, technologists from the Dean, Kucinich, Clark and Kerry campaigns laid down arms to share tech plans while their respective camps were still battling it out in the primaries. A (private) list and requirements for fall campaign organizing ensued. Just six weeks ago, a few of the developers converged in San Francisco for a show and tell of their emerging free software tools. Today, the AdvoKit project was the first to tag beta, hoping to kick-start the campaign software revolution in time for November 2nd."

Comments

Grass roots, eh?

[larley]

Hmmm... I had to convince a friend that free software is a plausible notion, as he simply argued that "If people aren't paying for it, what incentive is there?" But then again, if you're working on free software, then you have some sort of desire... While if you're working underpaid in a cubicle, you wind up having a lot less drive than someone doing it purely for pleasure. I respect those who work on free software immensely...

We need less technology in politics...

[John Seminal]

"Our big concern was what's missing, what technological piece is missing to organize an effective campaign. Resoundingly, peop le across the country told us there was a special need for software to enable neighbor-to-neighbor activity--and that, ideally, it should be freely distributed, easy to use, and free."

I disagree with this. I think we don't need more between the voter and the politicians, we need less. What I want to see is the politicians go door to door, meet people, talk to them. The more politics becomes some equation with all the consultants and marketing experts, the less voting will mean. Politicians will secure their base, do research to find out how to make the middle swing their way, and then give speeches to satisfy those people. More technology will just reinforce this new paradigm. And once this happens, the real power will be with lobbyists, the ones who can fund a candidate to have the best consultants and marketing.

I would love to see a genuinely inspired person run a campagin going door to door, speaking passionatly about what they believe in (and not something scripted by consultants). I would like to see this guy/gal reject lobbyists and do it the old fashioned, grass roots way. Can it be done today, and still win? I think so. But to the uninspired who want the title/power/prestige of public office (and not the public service), they will take the easy way and do a media blitz.

I will finish with one last question. Should it really cost 10 million dollars to run a "sucessful" senate campaign? Should it cost 200 million dollars to run for president? And how does that limit who can run? Only the wealthy? Only the well connected? What about Joe Sixpack who has some good ideas about making life better for the avarage american? Can he possibly run and compete?

Re:We need less technology in politics...

[mec]

You can't change what other people (the candidates) do. But you can change what you do.

Say you're interested in the race for congress. Find the campaign headquarters for the challenger. Call them up and ask where the challenger is going to be making public appearances in the near future. Look for the event you want -- a coffee klatsch, or a small club meeting, or a debate.

Do the same for the incumbent. And do the same for any minor parties that you find interesting.

If one of the candidates isn't going to any public events that satisfy you, write them a letter and say "I saw [your opponent] at [public event] on [date] but I haven't been able to see you anywhere. I like to get to know my candidates, so I'll be voting for [candidate who showed up and talked and answered questions] this year."

Also, get out your checkbook. Give a couple of bucks to the candidate who shows up and you even halfway agree with. I'm not talking $1000, I'm talking $10.

Re:We need less technology in politics...

[JanneM]

What I want to see is the politicians go door to door, meet people, talk to them.

Let's see, an american election period seems to be roughly six months - say 180 days, which comes out to 15552000 seconds (assuming the candidate spends zero time on non-candidacy stuff like sleeping). As a ballpark estimate, there are 75 million potential voters in that country.

So, 75000000/1552000 is around 0.2 seconds per voter. If political campains are to be face-to-face, that does not leave a whole lot of time to inform each voter on the candidate's position.

Say we economize, and run town meetings. On average, I would guess you can cover 100 people by one meeting. That would give you 20 seconds or so per meeting. Note that we do not subtract anything for eating, sleeping or travelling.

I would hazard a guess and say that technological means of reaching out are pretty much necessary.

Re:We need less technology in politics...

[identity0]

I'm sorry, how did you come to believe the technology was a barrier? Do you not realize that the internet is doing just what you suggest - bringing candidates closer to the people, removing the barriers between them and the citizens? How is Dean getting PayPal donations directly from the people at large worse than GWB or Kerry holding $2000 per head dinners? Just because the gathering of the elites is done in person and PayPal is done through the internet, PayPal is more of a barrier to the candidates? Dean was the closest thing to a winnable candidate who speaks from the heart that you had, and the old guard deestroyed him because of a media blunder - you want to perpetuate this by taking away the tools he used to get so close to the candidacy?

The internet and other aspects of the computer revolution are probobly the closest thing to a democratizing influence to the system ever since the mainstream media became conglomeritized. A candidate like Dean would never have gotten as far as he was able to without the direct support of thousands of people pitching in through the internet. Through the internet, Dean (or Nader, or Buchanan, etc) can reach just as many people as Bush or Kerry. And with free software, that's one less hurdle to jump as a minor candidate.

The internet *is* the grass roots. With it, a candidate can reach the public directly, without going through five layers of advisors and reporters and media.

There are 250 million people in the U.S.(not all of them voters). There are two ways of getting your message out to 250 million people - a massive party's political machine and media campaign, or technology, especially the internet.

It would be impossible to run a presidential campaign as you suggest without leaving out about 249 million people. How many people, pray tell, is your dream candidate going to meet door-to-door? Do you think a candidate physically meets even one million people during campaign? So in your search for a more "accesible" candidate, you end up leaving out the vast majority of the population - but hey, as long as it looks populist, right?

Ironically, it's this childish wish for a candidate "among the people" that the media and campaign managers cater to. Look at every door-to-door meeting, "townhall discussion", and public speech given by the major candidates today - they're all fake staged newsbites, from the fake "Made in America" or "Mission accomplished" signs, the screened and vettted audience, canned jokes and focus group-tested phrases. All of it an attempt to look like they're in touch with "the common man". Your fear of technology is what's keeping these media blitzes going. I'd take a million screams from Dean before I listen to a mangled "speech" by GWB.

As for your last paragraph - with a population of 250 million, that's less than $1 per person. Would you trust a candidate that couldn't raise at least a few million from the people who would be voting for him? He(She)'s going to have to get about 40 million votes, after all.

And Joe Sixpack was never meant to be President of the United States. The Founders wanted the citizens to choose the wisest and most statesmanlike among them to be their leader, not settle for "the average Joe". Hell, there's even talk from the Republicans about Edwards not being "experienced", and he's a lawyer with 8 years in the Senate.

The License is *very* interesting

[tpgp]

The AGPL is a GNU recognized free software license.

It's essentially a modified GPL - with a "running this software over a network constitutes distribution" clause.

Very cool - I had no idea this was around - might be worth some Free Software developers jumping onto until GPL v3 comes out (which will have a similar clause).

For those who have no idea what I'm going on about - read devchannel's explanation: Closing the GPL's distibution loophole

Let me explain. LOL.

[John Seminal]

I'm guessing that you are a bitter Republican who most likely does not like this software because the liberals are using it?

I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. I was critisizing how it is so expensive to run for office. If you look at history, it is the republicans who have been breaking records with the amount of money they raise. And it is the democrats that go into neighborhoods meeting people. How many poorer neighborhoods did Bush go into? Yet I remember Clinton going into ghettos shaking anyones hand who wanted to, and kissing little black babies. I am pretty sure Bush spent more time at $500 a plate fund raising dinners. To be fair, the democrats did it too. But wouldn't it be better if they spent that time with us, rather than giving a canned speech to their supporters?

There is also the question of escalation and responding. If one side starts raising the amount of money they spend, the other side has to try and compete or they will lose. Same thing with tools. One side starts hiring experts to determine what makes the voters tick, and then customizes a campaign to tell the voters what they want to hear, not the real ideas the candidate has. What will the other side do? They will follow those methods or fear losing. And even if one side does something new, and it works, it will be repeated in following elections.

Technology is good because it increases Democracy

What makes you say this? Why is technology good for democoracy? Just because technology is usefull for some things, does it mean it is usefull for all? The problem with technology and politics is it is more easily maipulated than if the candidate was on your block, in front of you, talking with you. You can ask the candidate questions, view their body language. With technology they will sell you a politician the way McDonalds sells hamburgers. They will put up only what they want. The other side will try to smear them. And what are you left with? Do you really know the person?

Hilary Clinton or Barack Obama could run, but they have no chance of winning. It's about winning isnt it?

And while the ultimate goal is to win, sometimes it is about a messege. How popular a topic was the budget deficit before Ross Perot and his commercials. Remember the millions of dollars he spent so his same half hour commercial would be on all the major stations so he could show off his charts? Well, it had an effect. He did not win, but it forced politicians to do something. Because of him, Clinton balanced the budget. And while the republicans out there might say it was congress, the leader of our nation is always the president. He makes all the final decisions, which way to lead our country and what bills to sign into law.

Re:Grass roots?

[Xoro]

Isn't that a perhaps obstructively cynical?

You say: "the software is meant to tie people together in a way suitable to a political cause, specifically to raise money" -- what's wrong with forum designed to allow people who support a cause to organize themselves more efficiently?

I spent a lot of time on a candidate blog this season, and thought it was a good experience. Moral support for activism, with a lot of discussion about what was working and what wasn't. I thought it was a very healthy experience.

As for money, what are we supposed to do? In Holland, maybe you can just shout and everybody will hear you. Here there are 300 million people scattered across four time zones, plus AK and HI. You need mass media to get your message out. People don't contribute because they're snookered into it, they do it to help spread a message they believe in.