[Prev|Next|Home] 24 Hours of Democracy [24 Hours Home] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- GS Aikens Democratic Dialogue -by G Scott Aikens In my view, forums that utilize the characteristics of computer mediated communication have the promise of facilitating what I'll call "democratic dialogue". Most political discourse is not, in fact, democratic. Rather, most political discourse is controlled by elite institutions, most conspicuously political campaigns and the political media. Perhaps, political campaigns will always seek massive control over political discourse. But, as we live in a country based on the principle, "government of, for and by the people", this massive level of control is not a fore-gone conclusion. What is needed to ensure that our political discourse is again democratic, than, is a change in the political media. Specifically, we need to change what I will call the agenda-setting function of the political media, wherein those who control the distribution of information set the course of debate. In setting the course of debate the political media perpetuates a top-down model of political discourse, in which those at the top of the information business basically dictate the information provided to the public for the public to discuss. This is not at all democratic. Because of interactivity, the most profound characteristic of the Internet, it is possible to structure political discourse in which many citizen-participants speak to each other about the candidates and the issues of the day. Thus, it is possible to consider restructuring the agenda-setting function of the political media so that the issues of importance to citizen-participants in a democratic dialogue become the issues of importance in the community at large. This is not to say that the political media will have no role in the democratic dialogue. On the contrary, it will have a primary role. Rather, this is to say that the role of the political media will be to guide and guard the democratic dialogue rather than dictate what people read, think, and talk about. The political media will need to moderate the democratic dialogue so that something with shape and that is worthwhile is provided. The political media will need to educate the citizen-body about the rights and responsibilities of citizenship and guide the citizen-participant as he or she seeks to exercise the rights of free speech, free assembly, and free press as granted to him or her under the Constitution of the United States of America. In the future, as access to information technology increases, what will be necessary to the democratic dialogue are open electronic forums, so every citizen has the opportunity to participate. Otherwise, it's not democratic dialogue. Of course, the open forum does not need to be the only forum. With computer mediated technology it is possible to create many forums, some of which might be tightly edited, some of which might be loosely edited. However, to achieve democratic dialogue, the open forum must exist. Perhaps *this* should be written into law? Very Truly Yours, G Scott Aikens E-Debates Coordinator MN E-Democracy --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following piece forwarded by Erna Koch was put together by the Center for Policy Alternatives and the Benton Foundation, both in Washington D.C.. It is part of a paper describing what the US States are doing with Telecommunications applications. --- Minnesota E-Democracy Project An Early Experiment in Interactive Electronic Democracy In the fall of 1994, the Minnesota E-Democracy Project created an electronic meeting space where candidates could answer public questions and critique their opponents - and where citizens could find detailed information on Minnesota politics, comment on the candidates, and discuss the democratic process. This was the first statewide political debate in the country conducted online in "cyberspace." All the candidates for governor (and later the candidates for U.S. Senate seats in Minnesota) participated in the electronic debate, which had been initiated by a citizen group of computer enthusiasts. It was also the first interactive statewide political online forum. A group of volunteers established the Minnesota E-Democracy Project before the state primary as a kind of clearinghouse in which computer users could examine candidates' position papers and engage simultaneously in discussions of their own in a cyberspace town square. The Twin Cities Freenet was the electronic "home" of the E-Democracy Project, which culminated in two E-Debates. During the E-Debates citizens could read the contents of the candidates' answers to three debate questions posed by the organizers, candidate rebuttals and responses, and other materials posted by the candidates. Citizens could also discuss the debates amongst themselves as the debates progressed. The dynamics that were created as a result of the Project challenged the traditional relationship between candidates, media, and citizens. For example, instead of reading a reporter's account of a speech, a voter could retrieve the entire speech. Debates. The E-Debates were co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters, the Minnesota Regional Network, and the Twin Cities Freenet. There were two fora - one for candidates to respond to questions posed, and later for rebuttals, and the second wide open for citizen discussion. People logging in could view both areas, but only candidates could "post" to the candidate debate area. Candidate debate - "MN-Debate." The forum called "MN-Debate" was the place for "candidate only" postings in response to organizer questions and rebuttals to each other. This was a fully secure platform (meaning that no unauthorized individuals impersonating a candidate could post here). Several third-party candidates happily acknowledged the fact that this was the first debate in which they were on an equal footing with the major-party candidates. Citizen discussion - "MN-Politics." The discourse in a second forum, "MN-Politics," for citizen discussion of the issues, was as lively as the candidates' interactions on "MN-Debate." Many participants decried the fact that the major candidates basically ignored the challenges and complaints from the debate-watchers (found on "MN-Politics"), forgoing the interactivity that was one of the electronic debate's appealing features. The project attracted international attention, and Al Gore appeared online in the debates to endorse one of the Senate candidates. Organizers point out that although access to the debate was limited to those with access to computers and modems, the media attention it attracted and the articles written as a result of the debate and online citizen discussion broadened the media coverage of the election considerably. Local papers covered the online interaction between candidates, which helped cement it as an access point and demonstrated to candidates the value of participating. Organizers attribute the success of the Project to the spirit of collaboration among participants and sponsors, and to the fact that the debate and electronic fora were free, initiated in the civic sphere, and hosted by civic organizations. Another very important contributor to its success was the quality of the extensive candidate information supplied by the major and minor party candidates. The debates and the citizen discussion are archived online, and may be viewed via the Twin-Cities Freenet, or at the Worldwide Web. Pros of the E-Democracy Project Initiated and controlled by civic organizations. Organizers contend that the project required a non-partisan, non-government sponsor and format to appropriately foster full and fair participation. Better information through development of issue-based discussion. The text format allowed candidates and citizens adequate time and space to thoughtfully and fully discuss public issues, rather than be confined to "sound bites." Print and news media covered the debates and used information developed within the debates, thus broadening the reach of the project beyond the online participants. Level playing field for all candidates. The forum as tested in Minnesota is not affected by campaign expenditures or party sponsorship, thus broadening the field of candidate-participants, and voter choice. Interactive. Citizens had the opportunity to have input on the questions asked of debate participants, and had a forum to discuss, deliberate, and influence each other about candidates answers. Project organizers cite this aspect as the "daily life" of the project, and it also served as a recruiting ground for project volunteers as well as for volunteers for all kinds of causes that might find representation. Available 24 hours a day for viewers with access at home. Discussion participants with home computers and modems could view the debates and participate in citizen discussions at their convenience, any time of the day or night, rather than being tied to tune in or remember to record a set-time debate. Reaches young voters. Young people, ages 18 to 27, compose one of the largest groups of computer users. Due to their comfort as a group with the medium, a project such as E-Democracy has the potential to reach voters in this age group more than traditional media. Cons of the E-Democracy Project The direct audience is small. The number of people with access to computers in the home is still small compared to the population at large. In this way, an e-democracy project (or any other program that requires use of high technology) can be viewed as exclusive. However, private use of the Internet is reportedly growing by 10% every month, according to some sources. Additionally, in most states, libraries and often state government are involved in efforts to provide public access to network resources via free terminals in libraries and other public areas. Uncertain future. It is unclear how such efforts can be supported financially around the country without the direct participation of government. Many freenets are supported in part by federal telecommunications grants that may not be available in the future. To remain accessible for free, e-democracy projects will have to determine sources of non-political support. The E-Democracy Project attracted financial and other support in part because it was the first forum of its type in the nation. One of the biggest questions organizers are now struggling over is how to sustain a volunteer effort like this after the incentive to be "first" is gone. Access to the Minnesota E-Democracy Debates was not freely available. At the time of the 1994 debates, there were no public access terminals available for public use at libraries or extension offices. Therefore, people without access to a computer and modem at home or work did not have direct access via any other route . [This problem is likely to be remedied by 1996 in Minnesota.] Other E-Democracy efforts There will likely be several efforts similar to Minnesota's E-Democracy Project around the country for the 1996 elections. In 1994, a few states had online election centers (often initiated by citizen groups) to provide access to information about candidates and issues. Examples of these include the VOICE Project (Voter Online Information and Communication Exchange), the Democracy Network in Los Angeles, Project Vote Smart in California, and California's "Election Web Server," which allowed computer users to monitor the state election vote returns as they happened. The VOICE Project, begun by the League of Women Voters, the Public Information Exchange, and Project Vote Smart, was a four-city pilot program to provide information on local, state and national candidates via a web page. Project terminals were located in public libraries, and the web page was available to anyone with a computer and modem. Citizens could find candidate profiles for local, state, and national campaigns in addition to polling place information, voting information, candidate voting records, campaign contributions, and third-party ratings of candidates. The Democracy Network, another experiment, was created by a Los Angeles think tank, and features a web page making available at an icon click video clips, color pictures, campaign advertisements, and position papers of state candidates. This project is unique in that it does not concentrate as much as the others on text-based information, but rather uses multi-media as what creators call a "multimedia voter's pamphlet." Viewers could move from statements of one candidate to another, contrasting their views on the economy, immigration, or campaign reform. For more information: * Minnesota E-Democracy * VOICE Project * Teledemocracy Action News Network * CyberCaucus (Iowa) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- this message is from: Erna J. Koch, consultant Center for Policy Alternatives Washington, DC CPA Website: ekoch@cybercom.net my direct mailing address: Erna Koch 88 Munroe Street Somerville, MA 02143 (617) 666-3347 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [Prev] [Next] [Home] --------------------------------------------------------------------------- [This is a Blue Ribbon] [Utne Lens] This page was last updated on Thu, Feb 22, 1996 at 2:04:04. Thanks to the Utne Lens for donating server space for the 24 Hours of Democracy. Email Cafe Utne's Coordinator for the 24 Hours Project.