TNA-GOLD 1/TNA-GOLD - Volume 1.iso/24hours/gsaikens.txt

INI File | 1996-03-11 | 14KB | 282 lines

[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:  [e-mail]

my direct mailing address:

Erna Koch
88 Munroe Street
Somerville, MA  02143
[phone]

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      [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.