Technology, the Internet and Electoral Politics (long)

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

(Posted in GD but locked due to mentioning a Candidate)

Internet technology political innovations that have appeared in this election season are having a profound impact on this and future elections. In this election, I see all of these trends working in favor of democracy vs. plutocracy. I am sure that this will not always be the case and by future elections many ways will be found to exploit the internet to favor special interests and the coroporate oligarchy.

A lot of the innovation has to do with the relationship between money and political campaigns. At this moment, the very existence of the web and email provides a powerful force for candidates with less money by providing free or very cheap means of disseminating information via email or websites. It has the potential for both lowering the costs required for running an effective campaign, while making it easier to raise the money necessary.


Internet Fundraising:

This is one of the most important changes, highlighted by the Howard Dean campaign. It is an inherently democratizing change to change the emphasis from $2000 a plate dinners largely attended by business leaders to $100 contributions from a contributor base that is orders of magnitude larger. The concept that a serious campaign could be launched without currying favor with any powerful business interest for needed campaign funds is a revolutionary one on the American political scene. The implications of this development are many and vast. It probably has implications with respect to what kind of contributor would give to what kind of candidate. It is difficult to imagine a middle class or lower middle class voter contributing $100 via internet (like I just did to the Clark campaign while writing this essay) to the campaign of somone like Arnold Schwarzenegger whom they already know to be vastly wealthy.

"Meetups"

I don't know who is credited with this idea (my understanding is that it has originated from the Dean campaign) but I realized the brilliance of it as soon as I first logged onto a Democratic candidate website, punched in my zip code and saw how many people in my area were signed up for local meetings. I haven't been to one yet. My first is tomorrow. This is particularly important for people like me who are a tiny political minority in their area (North Dallas). I will get to meet actual people in North Dallas who are voting against Bush!

My gut feeling is that the meetup concept probably works in favor of whichever candidate or party has more grassroots energy fueling their campaign.

Dissemination of Information (Web and email vs. TV ads/mass mailing):

This should have the effect of lowering the financial barrier for candidates since I am assuming that high bandwith websites are a lot less expensive to create and host than the traditional TV spots and mass paper mailings, and email is still essentially free. The significance of this change will only reflect the degree to which people have shifted their media consumption from TV to the internet. A shift back towards corporate influence will occur if the changeover from TV to internet media is complete, and webhosting expenses and running the internet itself becomes dependent on internet advertising/corporate sponsorship.

Obtaining information on Candidate's Positions and Records:

This is clearly a vast improvement as the history of a candidate is largely available via archived news articles, government sites (for those who have been in public service) and their own sites. Entire documents and articles, and even media such as speeches and TV appearances can be downloaded and stored on hard drives and reviewed at leisure.

Decreasing the "Sound Bite" factor:

This is only as potent as the degree to which voters switch from TV to internet and other written media consumption. I know in my own case this switch has been virtually complete in the past few years. The effect of the "Dean Scream" in Iowa on his campaign certainly shows we are not there yet. A national change will probably await the greater availability and universal adoption of broadband internet in this country. Again, a written record of speeches and statements is available for review at any time. I personally feel that the extensive record of Bush administration statements in the runup to the Iraq invasion, by the President himself and various surrogates, is causing extensive problems for them at the moment despite the vigorous propaganda campaign that has been continuously waged.

The Spectre of Black Box Voting and Electoral Corruption

While most of the changes I've described have what I believe to be a democratizing effect on the current elections process, there is a great concern among many that all this could be cancelled out by the possibility of wholesale election fraud facilitated by computerized and internet voting. That this should be a powerful bipartisan issue is self evident. Anyone who believes that their candidate has the support of the people should be in favor of the most accountability possible in the voting process, including the availability of a paper trail. I don't see compelling arguments against this yet it has not been implemented into the current schemes to my knowledge. The lack of concern among those in power promoting these schemes raises suspicion of the assumption that any fraud that occurs will happen in favor of their candidate, a concern that could be easily dispelled by creating paper accountability or delaying the implementation until demonstrably more secure systems exist.

[JailForBush]

1. Some comments...

Good post; here are some comments.

First, your post supports the need to take on Bill Gates. I'm shocked at the number of fools who support that jackal even on Democratic Underground. People need to wake up and smell the coffee!

Candidates' websites is another issue that really resonates with me. If children are expected to survive high-stakes tests, then ADULTS who run for public office ought to be expected to at least write the equivalent of a ten-page term paper on a variety of issues and displaying them online.

The shocking truth is that most candidates have websites only during elections, and they typically wouldn't pass a fifth-grade exam. This is absolute bullshit.

Besides educating the public, websites could and should be used to separate the wheat from the chaff. Anyone who claims to care about political reform or social justice should have a substantial track record, including a website with deep roots. Virtually no "activist" here in Seattle has such a website; most have none at all - even after I've pressured them to get with it. This is powerful evidence that these people are actually corporate operatives.

And I'm not just talking about individuals. Big organizations, including local branches of the Democratic and Green parties typically have websites that can only be described as pathetic. Seriously, the number of really credible political websites on the Internet is unbelievably tiny.

I ran for public office three times, and I invested many hours in my political website, which had been online for years previously, so I have no sympathy with the lazy jerks who don't care enough to speak their minds on at least ten important issues.

The value of the Internet to election campaigns and political reform is obviously increasing. It's up to us to pressure candidates to get it together, at the same time guarding the Internet from George Bush, Bill Gates and their cronies.

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

2. Thanks for the reply

Hope to see more on this thread... Off to study the candidate websites!;-)