Making Technology Democratic 238
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That description sounds more than 150 years out of date.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.
Too much democracy (Score:2)
Re:In support of facism (Score:2)
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.
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:2)
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.
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:2)
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.
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:2)
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.
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:2)
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.
Re:Seems I'm a lot more sanguine about this than y (Score:2)
Someone mod this up!
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:2)
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.
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:2)
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.
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:4)
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.
A fourth arm to the federal government. (Score:2)
Special Interest Groups (Score:5)
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
--
We know.. (Score:2)
..but what about technology and democracy? can one be used to promote the other?
Good post..Yahoo and politics (Score:2)
I did do it.. (Score:2)
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..
Do politicians respond to e-mail? (Score:2)
If pols are overwhelmed by e-mail petitions, does the e-mail have any meaning..Isn't it highly manipulable?
Don't understand this post.. (Score:2)
My monicker on
No, you didn't read the column. (Score:2)
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..
Yes! The wisest post.. (Score:2)
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.
Very interesting, but... (Score:2)
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.
Community Code.. (Score:2)
...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.
Very smart post..civil discussion online? (Score:2)
..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
Alienation and dogma.. (Score:2)
.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.
Disagree here..but great posts on this topic (Score:2)
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.
Very possible..if my knees stop shaking (Score:2)
Lots of
Social Isolates... (Score:2)
Has anyhone heard the term "social isolates"
Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:3)
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?
Some of the smartest posts... (Score:3)
...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
Re:Special Interest Groups (Score:2)
It seems to me that spending limits are the wrong way to go, as is public financing. Interest groups will make their own ads, and find media prepared to show them, even if they're not allowed to make donations. Even if somehow made the system airtight, they'd buy candidates expensive gifts, pay for their children to go to college, etc. Its not even necessarily desirable to stop contributions anyway: after all, we want poor people to run, don't we ?
A better solution might be to force all political organisations to reveal the ultimate source of their funding, and their full accounts, where a political organisation is any body campaigning for issues or candidates, or paying for anyone else to do so. The information could be collated and represented in any easy-to-follow form by an independent public body, as a public service, and violations persued similarly. With such a system in place, all but the most dodgy campaign contributers will find it easier to comply than to try to evade, and those few who do try to evade (extremists, the tobacco lobby, etc) could be persued more easily.
We must also remember that bodies we support (the EFF, the ACLU, the OSF and FSF) are SIGs too. Do we want to stop them campainging ? To truly stop the corporate lobbiests we'd probably have to. The other thing is to try to buoy up these "positive" SIGs: Give them money. Volunteer your time.
Re:the midnight nitpicker what nitpicks at midnigh (Score:2)
What is this Women vs. Men in design? (Score:2)
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.
Re:How to Reconnect (Score:2)
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.
Re:How to Reconnect (Score:2)
(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.
No, are you? Or is thinking just too new to you? (Score:2)
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.
How to Reconnect (Score:5)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Technology *is* the problem (Score:2)
At the risk of invoking a pretty good episode [bewarne.com] of The West Wing [nbc.com], "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.
Re:A fourth arm to the federal government. (Score:2)
Members are chosen at random from registered voters, serving staggered six-year terms, like Senators, but with the same salaries and perks as Representatives. By a two-thirds vote, they can veto (as a whole, or line-by-line) any piece of legislation that Congress has proposed, with the same time frame as the President's veto power.
This would put a brake on legislation that is mere pork or log-rolling, without creating the "tyranny of the majority" risks involved in simple direct democracy.
--
Re:Do politicians respond to e-mail? (Score:2)
In fact, serious, well-constructed arguments are surprisingly likely to have an effect on the politician. Any letter written with any real level of seriousness, at least in the office I worked at, would get a reply. Any letter that couldn't properly be answered by a form letter (and they do have catalogs of them) will thus be read and answered by the person responsible for the policy. If you write a letter pertinent to the bills being currently debated, you're more likely to get a better answer, and you may even see your words or ideas reflected on the floor.
One trick in your letter is to claim that you got a form letter the last time. Another thing to do is to help the interns sort your mail properly. For example, if you're writing to a senator on the Labor Committee about a health issue, say that in the subject/on the envelope. If your rep has a web page that names his staff, feel free to write to the attn of the particular staff member that should handle your question/concern.
Of course, you can really only expect this of your representatives (and maybe committee chairs). If you have a disagreement with a particular rep that's not your own, write to your own rep to complain. That's why they're called "representatives".
To get back to the point, unless the staff is entirely incompentent, and they rarely are (though you can certainly expect the staff of a junior rep in the minority party to be drastically smaller and less experienced than the staff of a senior senator with a chairship), mass emails and snail-mails don't overwhelm the individual messages.
Wrong question. (Score:2)
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.
Re:Vote Waste... (Score:2)
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.
Re:the midnight nitpicker what nitpicks at midnigh (Score:2)
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.
Re:the midnight nitpicker what nitpicks at midnigh (Score:2)
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.
Re:the midnight nitpicker what nitpicks at midnigh (Score:2)
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.
Freedom vs Democracy (Score:3)
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.
Don't you see? It /is/ the technology. (Score:2)
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.
Does Technology help? (Score:3)
Re:This is great.. (Score:2)
Advogato is one way forwards (Score:3)
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.
It has nothing to do with difficulty. (Score:3)
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 [dc2600.com]
Good idea, it's kind of starting here... (Score:3)
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
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:2)
What was it Bill Hicks said about Americian politics? "I think the puppet on the left represents my views. No, I think the puppet on the right it more to my liking." Meanwhile it's the same guy with his hand up both puppet's asses.
(See also Bill's version of the new president's first day in office [utexas.edu], as rendered by Garth Ennis.)
Re:Special Interest Groups (Score:2)
(as Nader says, "government of the Exxons,
by the General Motors, for the Duponts")
Re:Does Technology help? (Score:2)
Re:It has nothing to do with difficulty. (Score:2)
Us geeks are always talking about "choice". Well, if you want choice, help open the debates so that we can get Nader (and Buchanan) into the debates. Please don't be resigned to accept the two choices that are presented to you. America deserves much better than tweedle-dumb and tweedle-dumber.
http://www.debatethis.org/
Re:American's are victims of their own complaints (Score:2)
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.
Re:How to Reconnect (Score:2)
http://www.commondreams.org/views/072000-104.ht
There are plenty of other articles about the ramifications (or rather, lack of the difference of ramifications between the two parties) of voting for Nader. One of which is about the invalidity of the scare tactics Democrats are using to make us afraid that Bush will turn back Roe v. Wade, while history shows not only have Republican administrations *not* challenged Roe v. Wade, but in fact it got stronger as opposed to the last Democratic administration.
Re:American's are victims of their own complaints (Score:2)
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.
Re:How to Reconnect (Score:2)
Jesus Christ! You missed the whole fucking point of his post you moron! He so clearly explained why voting for a third party is not a wasted vote RIGHT NOW , and then you brilliantly say "While your points are correct, the road to a day when a vote for a third party is not wasted will be long". WTF!!? He's right, but he's wrong? This is the kind of idiocy we don't need anymore.
</rant>
Do it yourself (Score:2)
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)
Thank you. (Score:2)
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
Re:It has nothing to do with difficulty. (Score:2)
/*begin joke*/Maybe we ought to suspend voting for a few years, and see how people react to having no voice in government by force, instead of by choice. Maybe contraryness can give a boost to the democratic process. . . /*end joke*/
"Sweet creeping zombie Jesus!"
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:2)
'grew up on' implies that the 'net was already in existance during the formative years of the persons life, say age 3 and up. Since the 'net as a public entity has been around since about 1988 (Public entity remember, I know it was around before then, but there wasn't even much of a public BBS system before the mid 80s) the people who 'gre up on' the net are just now turning 16-20. None of them are eligible to run for anything higher than class president. So I think instead of 2002 you might want to aim at 2016 for the Age of the Net to be ushered in. The People who grew up on the net are now VOTEING (well, eligible to), but they aren't running for anything.
Kintanon
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:2)
This week, I'm going to learn all about how technology can enable politics; and, while I'm at it, I'll also potty train! Words must be interpreted within
the context with which they were written. The exposure of the average person into politics does not normally begin until mid teens.
Quiz time everybody. At 12 years old, which had more importance to you? Whether Jimmy stole Mary's notebook with the heart stickers all over it?
Or whether the latest highway subsidy bill got out of committee in the House?
What in the world are you talking about? We're talking about whether someone grew up immersed in technology to the point where it affects their outlook on life, not at what point people begin to take an interest in politics. The people who truly grew up with the net don't give a rats ass about politics right now (which might be what you were implying) but they will in a few more years.
The people who created the net are the ones who are now eligible to run for office, but aren't doing anything of the sort because they spent their lives creating technology, not becoming career politicians. So I fail to see how the generation that grew up with the net is doing jack shit about politics right now. The 35+ age group that is running for office are still for the majority technophobes of one kind or another, or at best people who are not comfortable with the pace of technology. As I stated before those people won't be running for office for another 16 to 20 years. And even then, it will be the people who grew up with technology but don't truly understand who are running for office. Because career politicians understand politics, it's their job, not computers.
Kintanon
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:2)
Revolution/Evolution (Score:2)
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.
It IS a wasted vote (Score:2)
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.
Re:It IS a wasted vote (Score:2)
the logic behind it is, when Nader gains followers, he's taking away from a split base of people that might otherwise vote for Gore and succeed in winning the election away from Bush. Nader alone does not have a shot in hell at winning the general election. Gore has about a 50-50 in winning. If Nader gets Gore to make promises to the populace in exchange for dropping out and giving his vocal support, we might end up with a half-decent resolution with the outcome being that Bush doesn't get elected.
If We Become A Democracy, I'm Leaving (Score:2)
Re:Technology will definitely change politics (Score:2)
American's are victims of their own complaints (Score:2)
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
America (Score:2)
Appointments to offices by the President must be approved by Congress. This has to hold true in all cases.
_Representative_ democracy? Poppycock. (Score:2)
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! [8m.com]
Technology alone can't promote democracy (Score:3)
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 [jesseventura.org]. 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?
--
Eliminate politicians!!! (Score:2)
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.
Re:Eliminate politicians!!! (Score:2)
Still, there is a judicial branch of government. And bills would have to be constitutional.
That is why we would still have some form of gatekeeper. But this would be on form and consitutionality.
Re:Eliminate politicians!!! (Score:2)
When congress passes laws, there has to be some appearance of of constitutionality. That is why we have the courts as a check of the legislative branch.
We will never eliminate this, but maybe reduce it.
won't eliminate this type f Did you see the Distinguished Gentlemen? It's a documentary with Eddy Murphy.
Re:Technology *is* the problem (Score:2)
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
Re:American's are victims of their own complaints (Score:2)
Are you sure this is the case? I'm not convinced, until I see some figures. The percentage of people of voting age actually voting may have gone down since the 1920's or 1930's, but I'm guessing its still a lot higher than it was in 1800. Each group given the right to vote(blacks, women, etc.) has dramatically increased the percentage of adults who vote, and you know it.
The reason we don't vote is because we feel it won't make a difference. I have a friend in Utah who already knows he is going to throw away his vote because that state is giving its electoral votes to Bush. It really doesn't matter that he would prefer Gore or Nader, his vote is going to get thrown away.
If we had a real democracy, where a vote really was a vote, I think we would see a much higher turnout and more participation.
As a side note, I suggest you go back and reexamine your patrician viewpoints. You are not better than anyone else because you were born into a good family and have money. We don't need a class of superiors making decisions for us. As far as I'm concerned, there is very little difference between people that can't be explained by environment. Regardless of your background or wealth or your families social status you should have the opportunity to succeed in this country. Abraham Lincoln had that opportunity in his day - he was among the poorest of the poor growing up. Today he probably would not have the same chance -you need lots of money and social status to become President. The only way we can reclaim that opportunity for everyone is to make each person's vote count. And that is a step toward real democracy and away from republican government.
Gee... (Score:2)
Could it be that he doesn't fit neatly into your little "luddite" and "technocrat" boxes?
TheFrood
Advogato has problems, and is not a solution (Score:2)
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.
I can't figure you out Katz (Score:4)
If I had to nail down your perspective neatly, I'd simply have to conclude that you're simply a habitual complainer.
Determinationibus... (Score:2)
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.
Technology good for Democracy, Bad for community (Score:2)
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.
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:2)
Seems I'm a lot more sanguine about this than you (Score:2)
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.
Re:Glad to be mysterious, but 2002 (Score:2)
Re:Special Interest Groups (Score:2)
Nader has came right out and said, on several occations, that the reason he is running is to help the Green Party get major party status (which entitles them to government assistance).
This means a vote for Nader is not really a vote for what Ralph Nader says he stands for, but a vote for the Green Party platform, because it is the party, not the man, who stands to rise in stature from a good Nader performance. What Nader would do if elected should not be a factor in your choice, because he won't be.
This is a dramatic contrast from Bush and Gore, who each has a good chance of winning, and who belong to already strong parties. Their party platforms are not at all as important as what they would do in office.
In otherwords, vote Green, Reform, Independence, or Libertarian if you support the goals of the party, vote Bush or Gore if you support the man. All other decisions are less-well-informed.
Re:the midnight nitpicker what nitpicks at midnigh (Score:2)
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.
the midnight nitpicker what nitpicks at midnight (Score:4)
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.
Re:Don't understand this post.. (Score:2)
No amount of technology can make up for an ill-informed and apathetic populace. The public school system in the United States, coupled with the socialization of children as consumers first, creates an atmosphere in which it is not in the short-term best interests of the powers that be to have an informed, motivated populace of voters.
Until we can stem the tide of apathy and get people to consider what things are really all about, then technology cannot save us. Look at what giving the vote to 18 year olds did: nothing. Voter turnout has been declining for years, even though we have more people who are eligible to vote than ever. We made voting so easy that few people want to have anything to do with it.
Technology will not save us, Jon. The Founding Fathers gave us a federal republic instead of a democracy for a reason.
The nature of politics has changed - much too much (Score:2)
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.
Warning: Rant (Score:2)
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.
Blame ignorance and apathy, not technology. (Score:2)
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.
Technology just showing root causes (Score:2)
Technology *is* the problem (Score:3)
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.
Technology didn't kill politics (Score:4)
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).