Slashdot Mirror


Japan Bans Use of Web Sites in Elections

couch_warrior writes with a BBC article about Japan's choice to restrain political speech in the 21st century. The nation of Japan bans the use of internet sites to solicit voters in its upper house elections. Based on election laws drawn up in the 50s, candidates are restricted in the ways they can reach their constituents. Candidates are even restrained from distributing leaflets that will reach more than 3% of the voters. What's more, people who are trying to change the laws are failing. Despite heavy internet usage and a strong installed base of high-speed connectivity, young people just don't feel involved in politics. "In Japan, 95% of people in their 20s surf the web, but only a third of them bother to vote. Some, though, do not seem keen on politicians using the web to try to win their support. 'I believe that internet resources are not very official,' says Kentaro Shimano, a student at Temple University in Tokyo. 'YouTube is more casual; you watch music videos or funny videos on it, but if the government or any politicians are on the web it doesn't feel right.' Haruka Konishi agrees. 'Japanese politics is something really serious,' she says. 'Young people shouldn't be involved, I guess because they're not serious enough or they don't have the education.' There cannot be many places in the world where students feel their views should not count. Perhaps it is really a reflection of the reality — that they do not."

25 of 190 comments (clear)

  1. Nonsense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In any democracy, all people who are affected by the laws should have a say in how those laws get made. Indeed, they have a responsibility and a duty to make their voices heard.

    To paraphrase an old saw about reading, "the person who doesn't vote is no better off than the person who cannot vote!"

    1. Re:Nonsense. by cheater512 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At least the Japanese excuses are better than the Americans. "I'm too lazy to vote" doesnt inspire confidence in a country.

  2. I'm too stupid to be posting a comment. by Lordpidey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hey, I just realized, I'm too stupid and uneducated as a person to post comments, please take this away from me.

    --
    Some people encrypt by using rot-13 twice. I prefer the more secure method of using rot-1 a total of twenty six times.
  3. That's the difference! by jforest1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...between Japanese and American students. American students think they know everything and people care what they have to say. Japanese students know everything--including that nobody cares.

    --josh

    1. Re:That's the difference! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I was a keio univ student in japan (and is a japanese, 25 years old now), which i dropped off after staying for 6 years (2 years extra) by not even attending half of it.

      while you have said tad bit too much at the end of it by calling it a silly place, i totally agree how education is sad. i've seen people play games on their comp while attending class, since computer displays can't be seen from professors. and just do everything for the exams and reports to be handed out at the end of semester. and students even rob others' belonging in the changing room when they're having class outside...

      and this is the university that is called to be one of the best in japan, wow. and since i had no interest in learning in boring class, most of the time i learned programming and skills related to webs and linux on my own, and i can say i have surpassed most of my friends by a good margin in terms of those skills without taking any of the class seriously.

      the thing is, parents don't understand, and people don't really understand you unless you take the proper route and graduate it, but im very too certain that im capable enough to surpass any of the same year students to be very useful and i've started my own business related to web service on my own.

      i keep telling my parents how beating school with great score has no meaning and graduate paper is NOTHING but they had a hard time understanding it...

      but that doesnt mean all of japan hype is sad though, i still buy how our skill is great on auto mobiles and electric products, not just becuase the CEO isn't a japanese doesn't mean all the skills needed to develop are foreign. and see how environmentally friendly (as in co2 emission) compared to other developed countries. and then again, no guns make it safer too imo. japan still has great parts but like the topic, education is sad, and the worse fact is students don't get how sad it is, so they just go along with the route deployed for them ending up as not so useful work force no matter how good of university they go to.

      as a programmer i feel really sad how japanese lack any serious english skill as it IS required to be an ace programmer, for to look up resource and information and to communicate with other developers and so on. I hope someone fix this sad education system and basically i feel sorry how our young people don't try for the better but just sit in fixed environment.

  4. Breaking the apathy by alvinrod · · Score: 5, Insightful

    'Young people shouldn't be involved, I guess because they're not serious enough or they don't have the education.'

    I'm not up to date on the civics education in Japan, but I feel that in America it's sorely lacking and really explains why we have such poor turnouts for our elections. I didn't have Civics (American Government, or whatever you may have had instead) until Senior year in high school, and by then it was obvious that most of the students in my class didn't care. It seemed as though most were content to sleep or slack off during the class or agonize the teacher with idiotic questions or annoying answers.

    I think if we would have had the class at a much younger age and a teacher who promoted the importance of voting and participating in government, more students would have been interested in their government and the political process, perhaps to the point that they would research candidates on their own and make informed political decisions or have intelligent political discussion beyond "Bush is a Nazi!"

    Looking back on my education as a child, I really wished that there would have been more classes like this at a younger age or just more schooling in general. I look at the other countries where children receive more schooling than here in America and wonder why this isn't something that we as a country aren't attempting to emulate.

    1. Re:Breaking the apathy by try_anything · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think the quote was referring to education that would enable one to vote intelligently, rather than education that would motivate one to vote. I had plenty of the second kind in elementary school. That could be why I was an idealistic little kid and still am*.

      Still, despite the civics classes I had in elementary school and high school, I have a hard time feeling educated when I vote. I try to read every article about local politics I see, but it's like they're written in code. I know what all the words mean, but I don't have a deep understanding of them. I find it much easier to vote on national issues than on local ones. I'm pretty sure that no amount of American effort or manpower can fix Iraq, but I have no idea whether local schools need more money. I have no idea whether property taxes are too high or too low. Sometimes I feel like I should leave voting to people who are better educated, just like the Japanese guy who was quoted.

      As I get older, I am starting to figure out why young people have doubts and older adults radiate confidence. As an adult, you get used to faking things, especially things you know you won't be called on to justify. Adults talk as if they have well-grounded opinions about property taxes, school boards, water districts, and so forth, but they're really just repeating things they read or hear. My neighbor seems to know everything about local politics, and he's always enthusiastic about elections. It's intimidating to hear him talk with assurance about local issues. I feel stupid and inadequate, because my understanding of local issues is so vague I can't even articulate it. On the other hand, my neighbor talks with the same assurance about high-performance cars:

      Neigbor: "Did you know the 2009 Acura C5X-9000 is going to have neodymium assploditrons? It almost makes it worth it to drive my old 2006 heap another year."
      Me: "What the hell is an assploditron?"
      Neigbor: "Some cars have assploditrons instead of wickdumpits. Wickdumpits tend to accumulate carbon residue and get bendy. Assploditrons don't have that problem. The neodymium ones will supposedly eliminate bendiness altogether."
      Me: "And that improves the efficiency? Or acceleration? Or handling?"
      Neigbor: "It improves performance."
      Me: "Ah. Performance."
      Neigbor: "Yep. You wouldn't believe the difference. You have to experience it."
      Me: "So what do assploditrons and wickdumpits do?"
      Neigbor: "Well, wickdumpits accumulate carbon residue. Assploditrons don't, especially neodymium ones."
      Me: "But what do they do for the car? Why are they there?"
      Neigbor: "Ummmmm. I'm not sure. I think they might be part of the drivetrain. Or the injection system."

      It's this kind of confident fakery that causes many intelligent people to feel apathetic and inadequate when it comes to voting. Those people should vote. If there's anyone whose votes are needed, it's the people who doubt their own worthiness to vote.

      * (I'm a typical American liberal who thinks the United States has the best political system in the world but hates American complacency and keeps obsessive mental lists of things we could do better and foreign examples we could learn from.)

  5. good rule by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Im not sure what the implications of this are in Japan, if it ensures all parties get the same air time Id say its good.
    If used by the ruling parties to stifle others, ofcourse not so good.
    A totally open system will only favour the party with most money/biggest corporate backers.

    Where I live political ads on tv are illegal, and I think most agree its for the best. Anyone wanting to sling mud on another candidate has to do so face to face in a debate, and be ready to back it up or be called on it.

    1. Re:good rule by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've long thought that all forms of election advertising should be illegal and "reaching the voters" should be done exclusively through debates where everyone gets equal air time. You shouldn't have to be able to afford TV commercials to run in an election.

  6. definitely not! by r00t · · Score: 1, Insightful

    We don't let children vote. What a horrifying thought! Mickey Mouse would be telling kids to support billion-year copyright extensions.

    We do let people vote at age 18. An 18-year-old is unlikely to have been supporting himself for long, to have effective memories of both recessions and booms, to have a decent understanding of world politics, and so on. Most 18 year olds are still strongly influenced by the various fads and peer pressures of youth, typically as encouraged by the usual large corporations. (the pop star says we should vote for...)

    So really, low turnout of inexperienced people is not bad. We don't need any more people voting for the guy with the attractive haircut.

    1. Re:definitely not! by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      agreed. i'm 27 soon and i've only just grown a brain in the last few years. before age 24, I just had no fucking clue, and worse yet i THOUGHT i did just like others my age.

      i know there's probably plenty of people reading this aged 17 - 25, who'll hate this simple fact. Your too young to have experienced enough to have much of a world view.

      granted i'm not old enough to look down my nose at you, but i have atleast the realisation i have lots to learn.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:definitely not! by Gogl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And the 60 year old is going to be an intelligent voter? They're not going to blindly vote for any asshole who promises "morality" and "the good old days"?

      Face it, all ages of voters have the potential to be (and often are) stupid. Frankly, I've talked to some pretty damn thoughtful 12 year olds. I'm not saying that newborns should vote, but 18 sure as hell is an arbitrary line in the sand. Some people grow up before then, and some never do.

    3. Re:definitely not! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > So really, low turnout of inexperienced people is not bad. We don't need any more people voting for the guy with the attractive haircut.

      Hey, if I just turned 18, maybe it's just possible that I could actually be more politically informed and qualified to vote than 90% of the 30-year-olds out there. How are you going to determine I'm not?

      The important point being, you don't have the power to keep me from voting just because you think I'm voting for a haircut!

    4. Re:definitely not! by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      agreed. i'm 27 soon and i've only just grown a brain in the last few years. before age 24, I just had no fucking clue, and worse yet i THOUGHT i did just like others my age.


      Have you maybe though that this is you and a fraction of the rest of the population? I am tired of someone's experience being expanded onto applying to everyone as a quasi-universal experience.

      I know people over 50 that still act and think like teenagers. And I know teenagers that have it together without acting like they are the masters of the world.

      That said, advocating passiveness of the original parent is about the dumbest idea I have ever heard of. For one, if I wanted to learn how to cook - do I stay back, observe for years, and wait to do anything? No, I absorb one thing at a time, and then try it myself. I might fail the first few times, but I will become infinitely better much sooner than somebody who becomes an armchair cook watching Rachael Ray all day.

      Second, passiveness and complacency is precisely the problem with politics. Let the more experienced people take care of it. Well, we have let others take care of it. Look at our country today - two big sides of "experienced" adults mostly with rigid adherence to "their" political party despite all else, our nation with neck up in debt with several looming financial disasters in the future our politicians believe they can either borrow their way out of or don't care since they'll be long gone by then, etcetera.

      Yeah, I'd rather have people in as early as possible. Yeah, they will make mistakes early on. But I figure someone inexperienced at 18 making mistakes will recover and be more willing to change their opinions than someone who is 35, observationally experienced and practically inexperienced, and set in their ways.

      Let's not forget, many of the "experienced" senior citizens are also voting to look out of their interests. It could and should be counterbalanced.

      *You may notice my sarcastic use of experience throughout. I believe anybody who supports a particular political party in this day and age, particularly one of the big 2, has not learned anything of value from their so-called experience. There are good people in both parties, but that is inspite of the party's best trying otherwise. Since most people of any age fall in this category, a lot of experience is not being put to use anyway. I refer you all to George Washington's farewell address.
    5. Re:definitely not! by smoker2 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I totally agree.

      How many 16 year olds have experience of getting up at 4am to go to work, year after fucking year, just to meet the payments on a mortgage/credit card/loan/gas bill/electric bill/whatever ?
      How many 16 year olds can be trusted to vote for politicians that promise decent care for the elderly, and reasonable pension provisioning ?
      How many 16 year olds actually give a flying fuck about anything except themselves, or things that affect them directly ?
      The reason I mention 16 is because Bliars govt. has mooted the idea of lowering the voting age to 16, thereby increasing the number of impressionable people who are most likely to vote Labour, just because they don't know any better, and after all Labour has given them The Vote !

      Yes, I realise that you can't tar all 16 year olds with the same brush regarding their opinions, but you can definitely say they haven't had to work for a living ever. And most of what govt. does is payed for by those who pay income tax. How can you make an informed decision on a proposed piece of legislation, if you have no concept of what it will cost YOU in terms of your pay packet/standard of living, and whether it's a good trade off.

      I have been paying taxes and National Insurance to the govt. for the past 25 years, and what have I got to look forward to ?
      My state pension as provided for by the NI payments will be so small as to be useless.
      If I need hospital treatment in the future, I am likely to be refused because I smoke (despite the fact that in 25 years, I have never required hospital treatment, and have never clogged up accident and emergency because of a cut finger)
      Where has my money gone ? Am I entitled to nothing I was promised and have payed for (in advance)?
      And yet the govt. is happy to pay people to do nothing rather than work, to pay people grants for life choices, to give people tax breaks for life choices (marriage, pregnancy, multiple children) while I as a single white male, am taxed the most and receive the least (nothing to be precise). I agree with the principle of social support, but I don't agree with being treated as a cash cow for other peoples life choices. The whole social support structure was intended for people who had fallen on hard times, not to provide a nice side line for people who decided to have 6 kids, but couldn't afford to provide for them.

      How can you expect a 16 year old to have a sense of grievance like that, without which, any political decision they make is rather shallow and open to manipulation.

      Bah ! Get off my lawn !

    6. Re:definitely not! by the+not-troll · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Let me get this straight - you say letting 16 year olds vote is a stupid idea because they don't understand the importance of having a pension in old age and to support it you point to how the current system screwed it up? You know, that's a really idiotic argument. I absolutely can't see

      • how letting younger people vote would make it any worse than it already is; or how they would have any more weight than any other societal group
      • or why they should be worth less as human beings (by disallowing them the right to vote) just because they haven't yet enough "experience" (so you'd like to disallow them voting when they go to college because they haven't any real world experience yet?)
      • or how them voting should be responsible for a crappy system which was created without them voting.


      And don't even get me started on how completely worthless voting is because we only vote on "representatives" who don't instead of the real issues: I do understand it, but what good does that to me if it is not me who votes on it but someone who is paid to vote in a specific way? And even if they aren't paid tend to be informed about as well as your average person: If people are too stupid to make correct decision, what could make anyone think that they could possibly vote for good representatives?

      As for your other grievances: I think a big part of the problem is simply the lack of education and perspective we provide your young. In fact, your education should start with yourself, realizing that all that talk about people having an easy life off of your money is absolutely nothing but propaganda, designed to divide the people (between "old" and "young", "haves" and "have nots", always saying that the other are unfairly better off) and make them toe the party line. Don't get me wrong, there surely are some people who intentionally misuse social support. But I really have yet to see any proposal which really curbs the misuse instead of simply making it harder for those who really have a problem. Indeed, one might compare it to copy protection: It makes legetimate use difficult while doing nothing to make illegal use harder after someone has taken the first hurdle.

      As an aside: I don't really see why we still have to put up with this insane idea that people have to "deserve" to live. Applied to your example: You seem to prefer to let the children die because their parent can't afford them. I think that you work hard and "they don't" should really solved in another way than hoping for them to die or cruelly providing for them too little to live, too much to die. Indeed, your pension being so small doesn't come from teenagers voting for immediate pleasure but from the idea that old people should hurry up with dying and not leech money off of society. After all, if you worked all your life but haven't made millions to retire on, you can't have worked all that hard, can you?
      --
      In Soviet Russia, government controls corporations.
      In Capitalist America, corporations control government.
  7. Define "definitely" by Lurkingrue · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As long as the aforementioned hypothetical 18-year-old can't be asked by his/her country to serve, and die in its service, I guess I'm fine with that. As far as this much-older-than-18-year-old is concerned, though -- if you're old enough to be a soldier, a sailor, a member of the police force, or a firefighter, then you should be old enough to vote.

    1. Re:Define "definitely" by timmarhy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      being asked isn't the issue - i'm fine with young ones not votng even if they are asked - it's the ability to say NO which is important.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    2. Re:Define "definitely" by Kickersny.com · · Score: 3, Insightful

      if you're old enough to be a soldier, a sailor, a member of the police force, or a firefighter, then you should be old enough to vote.
      Yet you're not old enough to drink alcohol, apparently.
    3. Re:Define "definitely" by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Insightful

      if you're old enough to be a soldier, a sailor, a member of the police force, or a firefighter......

      Or buy beer, get married, be tried for a felony with full penalties, etc. etc. etc.

      You got my vote.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    4. Re:Define "definitely" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not the issue. If an 18-year old can be sent to die in a war on behalf of America, shouldn't that 18-year old have some say in the process of that leads to making the decision to become involved in said war? Especially in the context of the draft, without giving 18 year olds a vote, you are making slaves of those drafted.

  8. Title somewhat misleading by achurch · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not that Japan "just banned" the use of web sites; it's that the law as written doesn't allow it, and hasn't been changed (in relevant part) since the web came about. Or rather, it's that the law is believed not to allow web sites; a few candidates that tried it got a warning that it "might" break the law, and none of them were willing to actually take it to the courts. (Interestingly enough, in this election the political parties have started posting their non-candidate members' speeches, arguing that they're allowed as descriptions of party activities rather than restricted candidate activities. We'll have to see how that holds up.)

    Incidentally, a similar problem with videos of campaign speeches was discussed here in April.

  9. Yeah, so? by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "In Japan, 95% of people in their 20s surf the web, but only a third of them bother to vote."

    Here in the United States, we get all the fliers and websites and spam and junk mail and road signs and everything else you could want, and we still get a similar result.

    It doesn't matter how you "reach out to the voters" if the voters still don't like you.

  10. that is above average education and wealth by r00t · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You're pretty unaware of the state of humanity, probably because all YOUR classmates were going to college and could afford it.

    The vast majority of people in the USA have never been to college, barely finished high school, and can't afford college.

    There's nothing wrong with offering these people an opportunity. They have the right to refuse, though that might be a foolish decision.

  11. Give us a break by fullback · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I've been in Japan for over 15 years. First, if you don't understand the language, you don't understand the culture. To the English teacher: your students probably have no interest in telling you all they know about everything. Getting into the typical argumentative/philosophical offered up by most low-time foreigners here is tedious since it always ends up being a pompous monologue on "This is how we do it in America, and you should too" nonsense. Unless you've been here at least 10 years and speak and read the language, you're languishing in the dark and still full of the preconceptions you got off the plane with. Knock it off, STFU and leave. Eighty percent are in Japan teaching English because they are social misfits who couldn't fit in with their own culture. After a few years they develop the "gaijin anger complex." They don't really know what the hell is going on around them and are angry at being trapped since they can't function in their own culture or Japan.

    Instead of discussing the topic, they can only rant about how stupid everyone around them appears to them.

    I find the Japanese election system a refreshing dose of honesty. Not the politicians - they suck everywhere - but the simple elegance of simply doing what most people in western countries won't admit to. They vote for whomever has the face or personality doesn't make them want to vomit.

    The election "season" is short, weeks instead of years, and that is a blessing. Who really cares what a politician says he or she are going to do on website, a debate or a commercial... they never do what they promise anyway. When is the last time a politician did what the said they were going to do? They rely on your goldfish-like memory to get elected and re-elected. (Oh look! A bridge! I'll swim under it. Oh look! A bridge! I'll swim under it. Oh look! A broken Social Security system. I'll fix it. Oh look! Iraq. We're making progress)

    To the next goldfish, I mean person, who thinks the Japanese have it wrong, all I can say is look at who the American public, in the self-proclaimed model democracy of America, elected in the last two elections. And you think the Japanese system is strange? Uh huh.