Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States

Scott Reents, Online Political Activist 161

Posted by Roblimo from the vote-early-and-often dept.
It's a presidential election year in the U.S. (in case you hadn't noticed), and this is the first presidential election in which the Internet is a major factor. Today's guest, Scott Reents, is president of The Democracy Project. Read this essay, A Citizen-Centric Internet , to see what Scott and his people are trying to achieve, then post your questions for him below. We'll forward 10 of the highest-moderated ones to him tomorrow, and will publish his answers here next week.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scott Reents, Online Political Activist More

Scott Reents, Online Political Activist

Comments Filter:

  • Gore on slashdot (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Think we can get Gore on slashdot for an Interview? Like we did with Metallica?

  • nice question (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The answer is here. If distributed news and moderations sources like this proliferate, there will be no way to control information or spin information flow. If the internet continues it's decline into push media, there is no hope.
  • "Exactly. And the elections would continue until there is a candidate that enough people actually want to vote for."

    That depends on how it is implemented.

    For instance, a binding non of the above might mean that all the candidates in that election are excluded while you itterate the election again with new candidates, which seems to be the way you envision it...

    Or it might be that after some set number of wins by none of the above the office is suspended, and the government continues without anyone holding that office, either for some set number of terms or forever, again depending on implementation.

  • That's the exact same thing said about the election four years ago. Wouldn't that make it the first election the the Internet had a measurable influence upon? Clintion/Gore and the republican campaigns both went after the Internet populous with web sites, and raised issues that they believed mattered to us.

    -buffy
  • Does Vice President Al Gore have an unfair advantage in the online campaign of the presidency since he invented the Internet? Will the FEC step in to level the playing field for G.W. Bush so he can compete online against Al Gore?

    Absolutely. Since Gore wrote the specs on TCP/IP and was the main instigator of all the RFC's in existance he has a major advantage. Bush is probably going out and secretly hiring all the "SkR1p7 K1DDi3z" once he has them on their side he will have a more level playing field.

    Bush probably wants the L0pht [l0pht.com] on his side as well being as they are top notch, and of course they wrote the one book [attrition.org] that prevents the one father of the internet from sleeping at night.

    ;)
  • do you think the 'main-streaming' of political activism, combined with the splintering of historically 'left-wing' ideologies has caused credibility to be lost for activism in general? do you think that the ease of access and publication on the internet has lent itself to this loss of credibility, if it exists at all? it seems that the media, at least in certain markets, has turned a deaf or apathetic ear towards any type of political activism that is not clearly mainstream. do you think the internet, and activism in general, can turn this around?

    thanks.

  • Given that Al and Tipper have a history of censorship (Tipper created the "Parental Advisory" stickers for music see here [salon.com] and here [uga.edu]) and that Bush Jr. is a republican with strong ties to Ralph Reed, who should those who want freedom preserved on the internet vote for?

  • Can a basically unknown candidate like Ralph Nader get a resonable number of votes thanks to just his web site?

    IMHO, you're looking at it wrong. The real power of the Net isn't just that you can go to some web site and hear their prepackaged spiel. The real power is that you can talk to other people who share the same interests.

    I talk (orally) to other people in real life. But the conversations are all bland. I'm not gonna talk politics with my co-workers, or the crazy lady I saw at Wienerschnitzel, or my friends. those conversations are more like, "Gee, it sure is hot today," or "Get away from me, crazy lady," or "let's rent a movie and eat pizza."

    On the net, there's real discussion, because people who care about something can find each other. It can be done through websites that are not biased (e.g. affiliated with a candidate) or watered down (e.g. the television news shows that explore a candidate's soundbites "in depth" for 20 seconds).

    The net can have an interesting effect on Ralph Nader's not because of his web site, but because of independent web logs, Usenet, etc.

    It reminds me a lot of 'underground' music. By its very nature, you'll never see it on a "video" TV station, or hear it on the radio. If you are really dedicated or lucky, and live in the right place, you might find it in a club. But on the 'Net, you can find it a lot easier. For example, I think Heavy Metal (and I mean real metal, not that Korn crap) is making a comeback, and the 'Net has a lot to do with it.


    ---
  • I would like to know how democratic you feel that the current political system in the USA really is. Please take into account that only some 25% of the electorate votes, that they are generally middle to upper class. Also include that most voters allow representatives to maintain no amount of accountability, re-electing them although they have not fulfilled any of the goals or values from their platform.

    That is democracy! Democracy does not dictate that people make wise choices.

    Bottom-up control is the kind of Democracy that is the real defintion of the word, the kind imagined by Thomas Jeffereson, Adam Smith and many other 'forefathers'. Today, unfortunately, there is a different definition of democracy, and I hope that you can help us see which one you prefer.

    I see no evidence that the founding fathers wanted democracy. What we are supposed to have is a Republic, and many of the problems we are beginning to face is the direct result of too much democracy and too little leadership. Democracy is just about the worst form of government out. Democracy is just another word for Mob rule and no principles except for the transient desires of the masses.

  • I think the totally out of control dog is more akin to anarchist. When he settles down and starts marking his territory then the dog is a libertarian.
  • The "hacker culture" that the Net largely originated from had (and has) a strong libertarian undercurrent. Perhaps the influence of many of the net's founders and early adopters continues to be felt politically. Al Gore excepted, of course.
  • Repealing the Second Amendment and then passing laws that make bearing arms illegal would, in fact, make bearing arms illegal (by definition), entirely within the constitutional framework.

    Of course this has nothing to do with one's right to bear arms, which exists whether or not the Constitution enumerates it, as you rightly point out. And if the Second Amendment (or any other in the BoR) were to be repealed, it would be an excellent idea to start exercising this right.

  • Hi "Bruce Perens.", how are you doing in troll-land?

    Besides the name-jacking, you do make a good point. We don't know what will happen 10 years down the road. The fact that the internet gained in popularity in the past ten years has nothing to do with the next ten years. Cellular and WAP will come along, and may spend some time in the limelite, but for the most part computers will continue to exist in the same form plus a few appliances on the horizion.

    The web-pad is one example of good tech. It will not be wireless when it comes out, but within a quarter, they should have that capability. And if AOL promotes and backs the tech, you will have massive inroads for vital portable tech.

    Of course, the above has nothing to do with politics on the net, but rather politics of the net.

  • This is silly. Who cares if the west coasters vote or not. If you are ignorent enough to think your vote doesn't count then don't cast it. After all, it is a short line from "Why should I vote for a candidate that the TV predicts has already lost" to "Why should I vote for a candidate that isn't going to win"

  • Me, I vote simply because it gives me the right to bitch about the government.

    I know plenty of people who don't vote and bitch all the time. No one has hauled them away yet.

    Call my cynical.

    You are cynical.
  • That's easy.. vote for Bush... unless you want to pay more taxes.
  • There is only one party that *consistently* *in all cases* opposes censorship: The Libertarian Party

    In the interests of full disclosure you should mention this is the party that wants to legalize child pornography before people get all excited and go out and vote for them.
  • Jello needs the work to... he lost a lawsuit for $200,000+ for mismanaging his band's back catalog.

    Just the kind of guy we need to replace Bubba.
  • This is not a troll... can't handle the truth, eh?

    Read from the Libertarian Party 1998 Platform. [lp.org]


  • When I first saw this response, I wondered how Bruce Perens got down to -1, then I saw the name-jack and wondered how a troll made such a good post. Ah, what an interesting forum /. provides...

    While I agree that the Internet will look radically different than it does today, I think that the changes will magnify whatever effects the internet (or whatever the next thing is called) has on political content.

    In general, a hundred years ago, politicans talked to "the public" will little targeted content. Ten or twenty years ago, politicans really began the perfecting of targeting their message to certain segments. I know of politicans who send one mailing to Harley riders and another to Caravan moms. The internet allows even finer granularity. The internet turns a 48-hour response time to an attack into a 48-minute response time. Whatever comes next is going to further this trend, not go backwards.

    So that is the real question. Not "How does the Internet change the message," but rather, "How does the increased ability to communicate that the Internet gives politicians change their message?"

    -sk

  • The best presidential candidate site taht follows all rules explained at Scott Reines site is this [vaderfor2000.org].
  • Others, particularly the things that most of us buy most of the time in modest quantities, are completely uninfluenced by the activities of the wealthy minority.

    You mean stuff like cleaning products from proctor and gamble or long distance from At&t?

    Voting none of the above is silly, IMHO. By not voiting you are just making the universe of voters that much smaller and thus increasing the effectiveness of the votes of every other idiot out there. Vote for a random candidate if you want to inject a little chaos into the system, but not voting does NOTHING to help. "Oh, look, low voter turn-out again. I guess nobody cares how I do my job."

    --
  • And boy, was that ever a small font!

    My guess is that you're on a *nix box running Netscape, which doesn't always handle fonts correctly. Try putting your 100dpi fonts at the beginning of your font path when you're reading pages like this one and things should be a lot clearer.

  • Since you are such a chucklehead, I'll just quote it here:
    Sexual Rights We believe that adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity. We oppose any government attempt to dictate, prohibit, control, or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. We support repeal of existing laws and policies which are intended to condemn, affirm, encourage, or deny sexual lifestyles or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles.
    Are you incapable or reading? The word adult in there clearly spells out the intended purpose. It does not state that children may be used or abused by adults and any attempt to read it that way is quite dishonest.
  • You wrote:

    "Many political organizations' online brands are weak because they have a history of not being objective providers of information, but it is not too late to attempt to recast their brands."

    [incredulous look] Come on! What do you expect? Republicans to start saying "Actually, the Democrats have some good ideas". Please explain why these ideas of yours are not total fantasy, as regards political party sites.

    No wait, don't bother, I'm being rhetorical.

  • So, what part of my statement makes you think that I don't know what a militia is? The statement I made is a fact. Were you to leave out the first 4 words of the second amendment, you completely change the meaning of the amendment. I don't know what you were thinking when you read my statement, but it looks like you tried to see some sort of hidden meaning. There is no hidden meaning in my statement, no doublespeak, nor writing between the lines. Take it or leave it, it is a true statement.

    -Adam

    Marriage is love.
    Love is blind.
    Marriage is an institution.
    Therefore, marriage is an institution for the blind.

    If you really want to know what I think about the modern usage of the second amendment, go here [ubasics.com]. But this thread is completely off topic. Please send flames directly to me [mailto].
  • The internet could become the most democratizing force in human history. But it won't. You, me, and most of the rest of the /. types will actually use the 'net to gain unbiased information, but let's be realistic here. The masses are not like us. They wan't recipes and fancy applets that let them know if someone's trying to call them while they're connected (anyone else notice how quickly Telus's ad came out after Sprint's?). At best, we might beable to get some of them to read general news sights that aren't owned by the same people who own the TV news. Most people go to pages whose URL's they've marked down off TV or advertisments, which means that they never, ever see anything that isn't created by some company or another.
  • You don't see a difference between not knowing (and often not caring) and being certain of the negative case? I personally am agnostic, because I don't have any way of knowing, and science is far from complete. (Evolution in particular, does in fact have some pretty big holes)
  • You may not see it as such, but that is what it's meaning is. Kinda like the masses considering the word "ignorant" to mean "rude" rather than "lacking in knowledge". Someone who doesn't worship any gods in agnostic. I feel perfectly justified in saying the Christian God (I don't feel like being beligerant and insulting large numbers of people, so I'll actually spell the word properly) does not exist as well, presumably for the same reasons that you don't believe in invisible pink unicorns. However, I am not at all certain that there is no higher power of any sort; thus, I am agnostic, and not an atheist. Mainly because Creationism is the only other idea on the origins of man that I'm personally aware of. And I do believe that animals evolve, its the big leaps that I have doubts about.
  • True, but even with just five-word stances on the various "issues" I don't have any problem looking at the candidate that's closest to my beliefs (apparently), and say "I don't quite agree with that" I don't want a candidate who believes exactly what I do, (or I'd just try to run myself), I want one who tells me why he believes X and Y. I want one who can demonstrate intelligence and negotiating skill.
  • Journalistic ethic seems to have died with Perry White (of Superman fame).

    Did it ever exist anywhere outside comics and similar idealistic fiction?
  • Bah. Irony is lost on you AC's isn't it?
  • I never can figure out why people can't understand the religous nature of atheism. Atheists believe that there is no god or other supernatural entity of any kind, much as Christians believe that there is a god that has some degree of supernatural influence on reality. Agnosticism is the lack of religion, not Atheism people.
  • I think you're giving the masses too much credit. People consider third parties a wasted vote because they believe that no one else is going to vote for the non-Rep/non-Dem candidate, so they shouldn't either. It's similar to the prisoner's dilemma.

    And, no, third party candidates wouldn't be any better. The one's who aren't half (or more) nuts, are too naive to play at politics. They won't even try to deal for at least some of what they want, and will end up with nothing. (Hey, look, more game theory!)
  • One of the many datasheets that I've always wanted to see is a rating of each of the voting issues identifying which corporations they benefit. I would really enjoy a cross-reference between that and each politicians' voting record and campaign funding to generate a "corporate lackey index".

    The question I have is: What do you think needs to happen before this kind of thing can come into existance, and what other data-tools do you feel will be valuable and possible for the future citizens on the net.

    Mythological Beast
  • Although more people from every age group are getting online every day, wouldn't online voting only really appeal to those of the 'slacker' generation, age 25 and under? What steps are you taking (candidates, too) to attract those who aren't as 'Net savvy? Most polls tend to show that the Baby Boomers and beyond wouldn't vote online even if they could.

    The Divine Creatrix in a Mortal Shell that stays Crunchy in Milk
  • Not to 'me too', but damn straight. Honestly, what kind of a fucking choice is George Bush or Al Gore? Neither are going to stand up for any ideals when in office, and either will say or do anything to get elected. George Bush has gone from NRA advocate to yodeling about 'sensible gun laws'. Al Gore sung the praises of the Kyoto emissions control conference and then quietly dropped all environmental issues off his agenda. They're both evil. And neither of them will actually wield any power. Hooray for plutocracies. Hooray for puppets.
  • Is it just a co-incidence that the inventor of
    the internet - Al Gore - is running for President
    in the first election in which the internet is
    a major factor? ;)

  • Democracy is dangerous (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't know how many times this has been said before, but it bears repeating: the United States is a republic, not a democracy! Democracy in its purest form is dangerous. It is mob rule where in many circumstances the mob is frankly not qualified to make decisions about the future of their country. As a republic (a democratic republic, at that) we elect our representatives to make our decisions for us; our representatives (in an ideal world) are tasked with upholding the nation's morals and standard of living. The project should be called The Republic Project if they want anybody to take them seriously.
  • Of course it is censorship; it was put in place by government through coercion, and relies on the views of the particular people who do the rating to determine what is indecent, and what is not.

    Algore and his little fascist wife are no better than the people pushing through the Fourth-Amendment-emasculating "anti-methamphetamine" law.

    There is only one party that *consistently* *in all cases* opposes censorship: The Libertarian Party [lp.org].

    --

  • That's pretty idiotic. If a rich person wanted to buy all the bananas, he would be smart enough to negotiate with the companies to purchase them all at or below the current market price. One could only presume that he would buy these bananas for some purpose, probably to resell them for more money. Still, a pretty lame example.

    Contrast this with the political process, whereby a bought legislator stays bought. A legislator who accepted someone's money in return for favors, and didn't provide those favors because someone from the opposite position paid more would soon find that they got no money from anyone.

    A bought legislator doesn't have to accept money from both sides on an issue. It's a thieves game. They just have to play by their own set of rules.

  • Why would the companies sell them at or below the current market price? They know that they have more customers than they do bananas, so they know that they can get more from their existing customers.

    Selling at market price means they would make as much as they would by sending the bananas to market. If you figure in other costs for distribution and whatnot, they might make more money by selling the bananas for a bit less than market price and unloading the whole bunch at once.

    Translate it into the right to kill at will. How much would a rich person have to pay to get that right? The answer is: everything they have, and more.

    Not likely. It depends on what you mean by "the right to kill at will." If you mean getting the government to recognize a right to kill, then yeah, that probably wouldn't work. There are other ways to go about it though, if you have the cash, that amount to basically the same thing. You can have people killed without being held accountable.

    All they have to do is stay bought. And that's my point -- that a fixed amount of money is sufficient to buy a legislator to put the political fix on a market. And that's necessary because markets dynamically adjust their prices to counteract any fixing anyone tries.

    I still don't think it has anything to do with markets. I'm not even sure exactly what you're saying here. Are you saying there is a market for political favors? Are you saying that since 10% of the people control 80%+ of the money that politicians take that into consideration and somehow balance things out by charging a wealthy person vastly more money in return for a favor than the politician would charge a poorer person? What exactly are you saying?

  • Not all markets are equally democratic.

    Markets have nothing to do with it. The fact is that 10% of the population controls.. what.. 80%? 90%? of the wealth. Therefore they have 80 or 90% of the control if they "vote with their dollars."

    "None of the above" would just cause another election. Eventually someone would be elected.

    Exactly. And the elections would continue until there is a candidate that enough people actually want to vote for.

  • Or do you think there will ever be a truly unbiased, trusted source (perhaps like the way the media should be) where specific information about tax cut proposals and so forth will be located?

    Do you really think such a thing is possible, even with the best of intentions? How many trusted, unbiased sources of advice for choosing a Linux distribution do you know :-)

  • What I find interesting about a lot of anti-American sentiments is that while they gripe a lot about the USA, most of the critics tend to fall flat on their face when they're confronted with this question posed by talk show host Ken Hamblin: Can you pick a better country?

    The USA may not be perfect, but it's certainly the most successful stable government in human history, where a transition of power from one elected representative to another tends to go relatively smoothly, even in the case of Richard Nixon's resignation in 1974.

    While a parliamentary republic may work in many countries, the problem is that if you have many political factions it can cause considerable chaos because a party in power can be voted out in a vote of no confidence or the party can call for early general elections--this happens very frequently in places like Italy. Given the very wide ethnic/racial groupings in the USA, a parliamentary republic would result in governments falling as much as once per year or more; this means much more participation of citizens since they may have to vote on national elections quite a bit more often.

    Personally, I think it's time that Americans should be MORE participating in how the government runs. You should contact your elected representative as much as possible, because contrary to what some cynics they DO value comments from their constituents. The Internet may be the perfect medium for this, as noted by the rise of discussion boards on many web sites and Internet newsgroups.
  • I think you're kind of underestimating the power of the Internet.

    Remember, the Internet is a true democratic means to transmit information--you can read newspapers from all over the world, read commentaries from political web sites of every persuasion, and have discussions on web-based discussion boards and NNTP newsgroups.

    Already, people like Al Gore have to be VERY careful what he says, because people on the Internet can dig up old statements from him that will contradict his current stances.

    IMHO, the Internet may end up being the most democratizing force in human history, because it has made is possible for anyone with a computer and an Internet connection to spread information at speeds no one dreamt about even ten years ago. In the old days, you had to rely on newspapers, radio and television to get the news; now, you can get information 24 hours a days from anywhere in the world that can connect you to the public Internet.
  • One of the greatest concerns that I have with the "online" presence of many of these political organizations is the blatant disregard for "The Truth" that some have. You mentioned in your article that the AlGore2000.org site seems unwilling to discuss the mechanics behind several of his proposals...to me this is nearly the same as writing a scientific paper with NO references or bibliography. Yet this behavior has become acceptable and commonplace in the polical arena. (In the media too, but that is another matter.)

    How is an intelligent citizen to be assured that the information being presented is accurate, and, more importantly, complete? For an example, one needs to look no further than Maryland Governor Parris Glendenning's recent reference to youth handgun violence statistics that were obviously gleaned from Handgun Control Inc., although Glendenning says otherwise, that turned out to be nearly 200% overinflated compared to the actual FBI Crime statistics. HCI quickly corrected the info, with NO mention that previous info had been incorrect, and Glendenning made no further retraction or correction of his statement.

    With politicians using such inaccurate information, and pushing it to eyeballs on websites, where is a person who is seeking The Truth to go?

    Journalistic ethic seems to have died with Perry White (of Superman fame).
  • I hate the degenerate nature of discussion areas as much as the next person who would like to actually colaborate and learn using this technology. Perhaps there's something about asynchronous chatting that encourages escalation. Why hold back when 1) you're correct and 2)there's no consequence for being a worthless jerk? But do you really think that there can be a "politically neutral" Internet? The Internet has never existed separate from polotics. Some say that ARPANET was funded by Cold War fears. Others would point out the Internet embodies the ideals of the Cerf, Kahn and others. We all make many arbitrary political choices that determine our action. The key is not to seek a politcally neutral space, because that ignores the extent to which we are always political, but to seek a space that is collaborative, not degenerative.
  • Some people want that. Not naming any names, some politicos would rather have mob rule. The opinion makers on the other side of the TV screen know that they can manipulate people into believing just about anything that they want.

    LK

  • Question (Score:2)

    by Kaa ( 21510 )
    Your list of suggestions reads like a kindergarden points list: be nice, share, play fair. What makes you think these tactics will be effective in the political arena where spin and perception manipulation rule the day?

    Kaa
  • Sir:

    I am running for Alderman in a medium sized town. Turnout for my particular race should not exceed 2,000. I have a website [jlculp.com] with a news section, finance disclosure page, platform page, and soon, a slashdotesque weblog. What more can I add to enhance communications with my constituents, and do you feel the web can make an effective impact on local elections?

    Thanks

    JL Culp
  • You think the economy isn't democratic? But you vote in the market *every* time you spend your money. Whereas a political vote only happens once every couple of years. In-between the only way you can get heard is by spending money. Typically you have a choice between two politicians likely to get elected. This is by design, to ensure that you don't have a politician who was elected by a minority of the voters. However, markets support many more than just two companies. Coke/Pepsi, sure, but there's Jolt, R/C, and many store brands. Even when there's a monopoly, you still can choose NOT to buy. But even if you don't vote, someone gets elected.
    -russ
  • Why would the companies sell them at or below the current market price? They know that they have more customers than they do bananas, so they know that they can get more from their existing customers.

    No, it's not a lame example. Translate it into the right to kill at will. How much would a rich person have to pay to get that right? The answer is: everything they have, and more.

    I know that a bought legislator doesn't have to accept money from both sides. All they have to do is stay bought. And that's my point -- that a fixed amount of money is sufficient to buy a legislator to put the political fix on a market. And that's necessary because markets dynamically adjust their prices to counteract any fixing anyone tries.
    -russ
  • Sure, there's gazillions of commodities produced by very large, very wealthy companies, for which most people have very little brand loyalty. Without those purchases the wealthy minority would rapidly become much less wealthy. That's why these large companies are always kissing our butts and pandering to our every need.

    It's also why those same companies try to buy politicians -- because it's a lot cheaper to buy favors from politicians (who don't care about the quality of your product) than it is to buy favors from your customers (who care only for the quality of your product).

    And that's why we don't want politicians to interfere with the market -- because it distracts companies from what's important: pleasing us.
    -russ
  • Markets have nothing to do with it. The fact is that 10% of the population controls.. what.. 80%? 90%? of the wealth. Therefore they have 80 or 90% of the control if they "vote with their dollars."

    But markets don't work that way! Whoever told you that was wrong. If you think it's common sense, then it's your common sense that's confusing you.

    Okay, let's work through an example. How do you suppose bananas get into stores? Do you think wealthy people control this process? Let's say that a wealthy person decided, for some irrational reason, that they wanted to buy all the bananas. Obviously, bananas are produced by multiple companies in multiple countries. The rich person would have to start with one of them. As soon as they did, that would reduce the supply of bananas. Everyone else still wants bananas on their morning cereal, so the price they have to pay goes up. Very few of them care that much whether bananas cost $1.00 per pound or $1.10. However, the wealthy person now has to cough up 10% more to buy the next batch of bananas. And so on, until they start competing against other rich people (and there are a LOT of rich people in America who want bananas on their cereal and who are completely price-insensitive). There is no price for which they could buy up the last banana. And in actuality, they would run out of interest or money long before they got to that point.

    In other words, they don't have 80 or 90% of the control, not when it comes to competing against the rest of society's interest. They have maybe 10% of the control, which is only appropriate since they are 10% of the population.

    Contrast this with the political process, whereby a bought legislator stays bought. A legislator who accepted someone's money in return for favors, and didn't provide those favors because someone from the opposite position paid more would soon find that they got no money from anyone.
    -russ

  • a small minority hold the majority of the dollars.

    Quite true. How many bananas do you think they buy in a day? How many yachts do you think the rest of us buy in a year? Not all markets are equally democratic. Some are for the rich and by the rich. Others, particularly the things that most of us buy most of the time in modest quantities, are completely uninfluenced by the activities of the wealthy minority.

    "None of the above" would just cause another election. Eventually someone would be elected.

    Government -- imagine Microsoft with nuclear weapons. Now try to run Linux, or *BSD, or Solaris.
    -russ

  • You have cause and effect backwards. The US is a republic because its laws are (supposed to be) neutral. When the law is fair, it doesn't matter who gets to vote on it. It is only when the law starts to favor one party over another that you see people want to replace a republic by a democracy.
    -russ

  • It is the nature of television that it is a visual medium, and is therefore superficial and shallow when it attempts to deal with deep and complicated issues <plug>(except for Frontline, Tuesdays on PBS.)</plug>. The conventional wisdom seems to be that the Internet has the potential to make for a super-informed voter. Do you feel that the text-based Internet is allowing for more in-depth analysis of issues to more people? Or is the abundance of information potentially confusing to those who are most interested in various issues?


    - Rev.
  • The government's relation to the Net has historically been hostile (surely I need not bore you with the standard list of government abuses in the way of censorship, surveillance, infringement of fair-use rights, etc). Naturally, those people who use the Net and pay attention to politics (i.e. the people who bother to vote in Net polls) aren't going to be filled with warm fuzzy feelings toward government.
    /.
  • Why do I always find the trolls right after using my last mod point?
    /.

  • There are so many obvious reasons for this I don't know where to start.

    First off, most polls used in the real.world don't count what your positions are and label on that basis: they just ask you "what party are you in?" Most Americans think there are only two parties, and "Libertarian" ain't one of 'em.

    The difference with the net is, if nothing else, the Libertarians got here first, put up their "World's Smallest Political Quiz", and educated the heck out of anyone who surfed by. Net result (pun only slightly intended): more people on the net (especially more of the earlier adopters who were around at the dawn of the web) know what a Libertarian is and whether or not they is one, than in the general population.

    That of course is not sufficient to explain it all, but it's a necessary component: you can't profess subscription to a philosophy you have never heard of.

    Even more important, net access is still largely a privilege of "success" as construed by our culture. It is still the case the the college educated are over-represented on the net, that people employed in high-tech are over-represented on the net.

    Frankly, libertarianism is more attractive to people who feel self-assured in their "success". Libertarianism stresses self-sufficiency, and thus its appeal varies directly with one faith in one's own ability to be self-sufficient.

    The net is filled with people who are largely confident of their ability to make a reasonable living. They have good prospects, they're riding on the crest of a wave of economic development, are proud of their strong work ethic, and are largely (sorry) members of that long-privileged class, the upper-middle class white American males.

    In the US population, on the other hand, is filled with (1) blue-color workers many (most?) of whom have been layed-off at least once in their lives (2) members of one of the many groups which have been subjected to open anti-hiring bigotry in living memory (women, blacks, etc.) (3) lived through the Great Depression. These people see their prospects as iffy (the rug could be yanked out from under them at any time), economic waves passing them by and being transitory at best, and their worth ethic, no matter how strong, as being completely irrelevant as to whether or not they can keep a job. They have far less confidence in their prospects for consistently keeping a roof over their heads, food on their tables, and clothes on their backs.

    Regardless of whether or not libertarianism would benefit such people (I make no comment on that), most people in the US are not going to find a philosophy of self-sufficiency appealing.

    The difference in demographics is very real, and where this is coming from.

    It is further exacerbated by the fact that the libertarian demographic is also more likely to want to participate in on-line political polls. For one thing, the web is opt-in while real.life exit pols are opt-out, and minority political positions always opt-in in higher rates than the majority positions. For another, someone who is on-line 8hrs a day (e.g. someone who works in high-tech, a university student) is more likely to fritter away time on the web doing political polls than someone who only gets 1hr a day on-line because they work mopping floors. The person on-line 8hrs a day has more opportunity to respond to a poll. And the person who is on-line 8hrs a day, for the previously mentioned reasons, probably is more sympathetic to libertarianism.

    Or maybe it's just that libertarians vote more than once. :)


    ----------------------------------------------

  • The Leage of Women Voters [lwv.org] was founded in 1920, to counter the assertion that if women were given the vote they were so ignorent they would only vote the ways their fathers and husbands told them to. It is a non-partisan organization dedicated to getting people involved in democracy. One big service they do is track candidate's records and statements of position.

    Their unbiased reporting of this data is so respected here in MA, it's widely considered the standard. Usually before big elections the Boston Globe will run a special insert with one of their big position tables.

    Frankly the problem is not getting good information on the candidates. It's the problem that the candidates suck.
    ----------------------------------------------

  • You think the economy isn't democratic?
    Of course it's not! It's "one dollar, one vote", and a small minority hold the majority of the dollars.
    But even if you don't vote, someone gets elected.
    Which is why "none of the above" should be a valid, binding ballot choice.
  • Obviously a lot of people have internet access, but I imagine that many, like me, never go to a campaign website, nor have I seen any banner ads related to the upcoming vote. I know, however, that when we get closer, I'm going to be looking up that information so as to be better informed.

    What percentage of the voting public do you believe will be affected by online/internet campaigning?

    Do the current candidates 'get it' as far as how to use the internet, or are they relying on others to portray them. Ronald Reagan knew how to use the modern media of the time to his benefit, ushering in a new/different way of campaigning. Is this medium going to become as important as TV was in the 80s?

    -Adam

    Don't leave out the "A well regulated Militia" part, or else you'll change the entire subject of the second amendment...
  • I wonder if it's not a combination of factors - 1) that people on the internet are more likely people of means, and people who are able to take care of themselves are more likely to be libertarian, and 2) people on the net tend to be more computer savvy, and computer people tend to be more arrogant, which is another trait many libertarians share.
  • The two major candidates in the next presidential election are viewed as cardboard cutouts thrust forward by their respective parties. Neither is a great statesman, a peacemaker, or a highly respected man of wisdom. They're not horribly offensive, and they have business-as-usual middle of the road views, if those can be considered what it takes to become president of the United States. Yes, there are other candidates involved, but they're not going to get more than an insignificant handful of the popular vote.

    Two questions:
    1. Aside from "rah, rah, democracy is great, rock the vote" nonsense, please justify why voting in the upcoming presidential election is worthwhile.
    2. Having two bumbling, unqualified candidates makes US-style democracy laughable in the eyes of other countries. Does this hurt democracy in general?
  • I doubt it. The problem is, who do you actually agree with anyone with the specifics of more than a very few, well-chosen topics?

    Start at "wars are bad" and just about everyone says "Yes they are". Say "That house needed to be burnt down as part of this campaign" and see how many takers you get...

    If a politician was specific about his beliefs, people could only look at him and say "I don't quite agree with that."

  • They could just have every time zone have the elections at the same physical time (9 AM to 9 PM on the East Coast, 8 AM to 8 PM in Central, etc.), which would completely eliminate the West Coast time lag problem.

    I think that makes way too much sense for politics, though, so it might have to be flagged down and talked about in committee for a few decades.

  • People are idiots. We're all idiots about something, sometimes. My Mother said she'd never vote for Ross Perot because she didn't like the sound of his voice. I know several people (mostly women) who voted for Clinton because he was on Arsenio Hall, and Bush was not (therefore Clinton was "with it").

    People are idiots. The majority make uninformed voting decisions based on party politics and other completely illogical rationale. The people who want to make informed decisions are the ones who will seek out information on the internet. So, just because the minority of informed voters will use the internet, how do you think it will actually effect the outcome in a major election? Most people are, unfortunately, won over by pretty pictures and charisma. Why should Al Gore change his website when it will get him more votes as it is? I mean, I know why he should, but my question is that why, when advertising gets the votes, should he waste his time making an info-mercial with the truth? He's spending his money, trying to win an election - the fluffy advertising is what's going to do it. It's sad, but true.

    BTW, my suggestion to everybody deciding who to vote for: the one with the fewest mudslinging advertisements. Unfortunately, I've applied this in the last two major elections and I've never "won."
    ----------

  • Much has been made of the effect Jesse Ventura's web site had on his shocking election as Governor of Minnesota. Do you think his site achieves any of what you call for from mainstream politicians? And do you attribute his success to the popularity of the site?

    Bonus Question: Do you think that the "just-the-facts" internet culture you describe will spill over into offline politics?

    For the record, I did not vote for Jesse, and am now deeply shamed to be from Minnesota. However, I could out certain Slashdotters who did vote for him...
  • As a United Kingdom citizen, I am continually surprised (and annoyed) at the way US law seems to often extend beyond the physical boundaries of the US, especially in the fields of copyright and the internet (DECSS anyone?).

    Given that the internet is by it's very nature international, how should it be governed? Can ANY national laws be effectively applied to the net, where cross-border transactions (and re-routing) are the norm?

    - Andy R.

  • It appears to me that you may be talking more about how to appeal to "geeks" than the general on-line public. Your quotes from Slashdot enhance that attitude. Do you feel that your comments are applicable to the entire growing field of people who may see a webpage, or to the programmers and techies that are making them?

    The political activism groups that I have been involved with have never expected people to just find our websites with search engines. Instead we heavily market our sites as ongoing resources to people we encounter in other ways. As a result, we do not expect our hits to be coming from "geeks" any more than from anyone who can jump on IE in a spare moment and write in the url. To what extent should we believe in this "internet viewing public" rather than just aiming for the regular old public that happens to be checking out a couple of web sites?

    -Kahuna Burger

  • Can voters ever be convinced that voting for the "status quo" candidates (i.e. either of the front-runners), will bring no substantial changes for the better?

    How is it that third-party candidates [votenader.com] are viewed by the public as "throwing away your vote" when it seems like they're the only way not to throw away your vote?

  • AC wrote:

    Even if I knew that *my* vote would be the deciding vote that put Bush in the whitehouse over Gore, I'd *still* vote for Ralph Nader. The thoughts of throwing my vote away by voting for a Republicrat is just too depressing. I wanna see Ralph get more than 5% this year and put the Green Party, and more importantly it's issues, on the map.

    That's exactly how I feel. (Interestingly enough, a pseudorandom friend I was talking to the other day said roughly the same thing.)

    It's great to know that I'm not the only one.

    Now, if 5% of voters would vote for Nader, that's 1 in 20. So, if each of them successfully bugged 19 others to look at the site... (of course, nearly 5% of those others would already be voting for Mr. Nader.)

    <shameless plug>

    Anyone whose curiosity is piqued should check out Adbusters [adbusters.org] (especially this page [adbusters.org]) and the Ralph Nader campaign site. [votenader.com]

    </shameless plug>

  • But an observation instead about the advices given to political sites in "A Citizen-centric Internet":
    • Be User-driven - This sounds like advice to a portal site or something different. I thought a political message should be the same for the entire populaton, after all, we all have to agree with it in the same form in the end anyway. The only other thing this could mean is something simple like using cookies to remember what article someone read, but that's standard site-building practice.
    • Exchange Value Fairly - Ha! This is even stranger! Now the objective advice tells the politicians how they should feel and act regarding online privacy (mind you I agree fully, but it's just wrong to read it here.)
    • Be Objective - I saved this one for last because it's the most ridiculous of all. Politics is about everyone's personal view of the world and life. There's nothing objective about it.
    Conclusion: worthless advice for "sided" sites and old news for the big news sites that already know how websites are built.
  • what measures are you taking to make
    sure that certain people don't
    stuff the ballot box?

    to email me: remove .SP M.

    :)
  • Buffers Files Tools Edit Search Help As a republic (a democratic republic, at that) we elect our representatives to make our decisions for us; our representatives (in an ideal world) are tasked with upholding the nation's morals and standard of living.

    Close, but very, very wrong...

    The United States of America is a Constitutional Republic. It is a system using democratic elections to choose representatives of the people, who are supposed to vote according to the will of their constituency - all within the confines of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution of the United States of America.

    They are not supposed to make decisions "for us." That many in this country think that it is so, is producing the largest untapped energy resource in this nation - the Framers of the Constitution, spinning in their graves!

    The US government was set up as a system of checks and balances. The Legislative branch was established to make new law, if needed. The Executive branch was established to protect the Constitution from congress (a job that Presidents have not done in quite some time.) And the Judiciary branch was established to judge the law passed by congress and the President, via the will of the People.

    Any law, even by majority vote, which violates the Constitution, is null and void - no matter what "morals" or "standard of living" it represents. Ergo, if congress were to pass a law which made free speech illegal, (such as the current HR 2987, which would make it illegal to publish, advertise or even make a URL link to certain kinds of factual information about drugs or drug paraphernalia,) it would be a null and void law, because it violates the First Amendment. "Upholding the nation's morals and standard of living" must fall within the confines of the Constitution - period.

    The Bill of Rights itself, does not grant any of our rights, it merely enumerates them. A prime example is that even if you were to repeal the Second Amendment, this would no more make the bearing of arms illegal than repealing the Fourth would suddenly allow government to imprison and kill people at will.

    Democracy is dangerous. It is three wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. The Founding Fathers of this nation knew that, which is why they made the Constitution the last word on any law.

    - Xiombarg

  • Internet denizens are another demographic that must be "sold" to a level equal to their voting power. Candidates are going to view the Internet population in the same way they deal with all voting blocs. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as this core group may have different values than the nation at large.

    From reading the mission statement though, I am having trouble discerning which purpose holds the greater good:
    (1) giving potential candidates feedback about Web users' views;
    (2) allowing Web users to be consumers of political information.

    It is a subtle difference, but I want to know whether yours is a site I go to for information and interaction with other information seekers, or to bitch directly to lawmakers and potential lawmakers? If you answer "both", do you see them as compatible?

    -L

  • I have to say that I view it as entirely unlikely that either of the two major parties will ever adopt such a system. The only thing that would encourage them to do so would be a third party actually making significant inroads into their voter base, or significantly altering the outcome of a close election.

    What do you think of the ability of an "Internet candidate" to get enough of the sit-on-your-ass-bitching population of the Internet mobilized to do anything useful? And how will such a candidate get enough "real world" support to create a significant (think Perot-sized) influence on the electoral process?

    The two major parties have been known to adopt rhetoric and positions from prominent independents, but how will a web site achieve this, no matter how well it is designed?

    (I'd think a good small move in this direction would be for ANY candidate to run a slashdot-style forum and answer questions on it; but then I'd also like to make a fortune selling the monkeys flying out of my ass.)

  • Actually, I'm on Win98 running Netscape 4. However, my display is at a high resolution (1280x1024) with small fonts. Nevertheless, it is quite rare for me to have any trouble reading text on the web. Perhaps it was due to the use of point sizes with Helvetica in the style sheet. (If I recall correctly, Helvetica doesn't come with Windows, although I happen to have it, so that might make me different from most Win98 configurations.)

    Oh well, I just increased the font size instead of touching my nose to the monitor and squinting.

    -- Diana Hsieh

  • First off, best of luck to you. I honestly hope you are succeed where so many have failed but I cannot resist some loaded questions.

    Some groups [igc.org] believe that the lack of issue focus in American politics is the direct result of the structure of the electoral system in the United States. In other words, a electoral system demanding a majority [mit.edu] causes bland, middle of the road politics and elections. In this view, the secret to electoral success is not offending people and mouthing popular ideas; not taking a stand on issues.

    Do you believe this is true? Why or why not?

    If you believe this is so, how do intend to overcome the structural resistance against issue based politics?

    Do you believe most Americans vote for a canidate or against a canidate? Why?

    If you believe most people vote against a particular canidate, who do think will dare take a stand as you are suggesting?

    Do you see your cause as appealing to mostly "third party canidates" or having a wider appeal?

  • Just for kicks I decided to browse your website using lynx and all the inline images didn't transfer over too well. Do you have any plans for "enforcing" web standards so that politically oriented sites have to be machine-readable so the visually impaired or other disabled people who have the right to vote are able to access this information as easily as normally abled people?
  • Great summary. You could have called it "Constitutional Government in a Nutshell".

    One minor nit to pick, though: The Presedent is charged with executing the law, not judging it. He has veto power, but it is mostly a political tool, not one of constitutional judgement. The office of the President is unique in that he is the only truely national representative. All the Senators and Reps were put into place by regional constituencies, so the veto is needed to make it harder for one group of districts or states to bully another part of the country.

    The final say in whether a law passes constitutional muster lies in the hands of the judiciary.

    A good example of this is the "line item" veto. Most people liked the idea. The Republicans in Congress followed through on their campaign promise and passed a bill for it. Clinton considered it a good idea too, and signed it into law. The Courts overturned it, ruling that it expanded the power of the President too much. End of story. There will be no line-item veto unless the Constitution is amended.

  • Can a basically unknown candidate like Ralph Nader get a resonable number of votes thanks to just his web site?

    What!? Unknown!?

    Oh, come on! He has been a nationally recognized whiner^H^H^H^H^H^Hpundit for a long, long time. More typical Americans know about him today than knew about Perot before 1991.

    He also has the endorsement of the UAW, one of the countries largest labor unions.

    If he gets anything less that 5% of the popular vote, he should view it as a profound failure and rejection of his candidacy.

  • s/1991/1987/

    Everybody knew about Perot by '91. My bad.

  • It has been said that using the internet to campaign represents a fundamental shift in the way politics will run in the future. The question I see here is how is the internet going to help make people believe canidates have spent some "one-one-one" time with them. Will the internet replace things like townhall meetings with a live video feed anyone can download or is that kind of face-time with a canidate still important?

  • Is Internet driving a societal shift? (Score:3)

    by Noel ( 1451 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2000 @06:26AM (#1036375)
    In your essay you say, "the expectations of people on the Internet are different and more demanding than citizens' expectations in general."

    Are these higher expectations a result of being on the Internet, or does Internet access self-select people that have higher expectations?

    Will the influx of people onto the Internet raise the expectations of the general populace, or will it dilute the expectations of the Internet community?

  • politics (Score:3)

    by nomadic ( 141991 ) <nomadicworld@ g m a i l . com> on Wednesday May 31, 2000 @06:11AM (#1036376) Homepage
    As much as I love arguing politics--for hours at a time, as long-suffering acquaintances could attest--every "discussion" area for politics I've seen online seems to degenerate into a few loud and presumably unstable individuals screaming about their point of view. I decided a while ago that I like my internet politically neutral.

  • Real Influence? (Score:4)

    by Zan Thrax ( 53693 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2000 @06:22AM (#1036377) Homepage
    How much actual influence will the internet actually have on the election? Is there more to this than everyone saying that "this is the first presidential election in which the Internet is a major factor"? Since the candidate web sites are little more than straightforward presentations of their campaign slogans, how is the 'net going to make the election any different that what it would be if the public had to rely only on the traditional news media? Will the anti-candidateX sites have any real effect, or will they simply be seen as more of the business-as-usual mudslinging that defines American election campaigns?

  • Query (Score:4)

    by Modern_Celt ( 105567 ) <scott@@@moderncelt...org> on Wednesday May 31, 2000 @06:03AM (#1036378) Homepage
    Considering the speed of internet communication is this going to make it even more difficult for those in the Western states to care about the ellection? After all, most of the networks already predict a winner LONG before the poles out west close.

  • noted (Score:4)

    by jbarnett ( 127033 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2000 @07:11AM (#1036379) Homepage

    It has been noted that Al Gore is popular among geeks for many reaons, for example he invented the Internet, runs Linux on his web site and hides cool little things in his HTML source. What do you think other Presidental canidates have to do or are doing to "compete" with Al Gore for the Geek vote?

    Bill Clinton raised a lot of votes by "reaching out" to the Youth of America, do you think Al Gore will continue to "reach out" to the Geeks of America in the same aspect as Clinton did a few years back?

    In your personal opinon who is the more 31337 hAx0r: Gore or Bush? And Finally the question everyone is dying to know the answer to: If pited against each other in a roman style caged deathmatch, who would win, Gore or Bush?

  • detailed content (Score:4)

    by geekpress ( 171549 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2000 @06:22AM (#1036380) Homepage
    One reason, in my opinion, that politicians don't provide detailed content on their web sites about policy proposals is the concern that what they say will come back to bite them, a la "No New Taxes." Concrete policy proposals can be used against them once in office, for it is easier to measure someone's actions against written statements than soundbytes and speeches.

    So, given this strong incentive to keep proposals vague, what other incentives can we offer politicians to pony up the details of their plans for us?

    And boy, was that ever a small font!

    -- Diana Hsieh

  • Ender's Game (Score:4)

    by ZetaPotential ( 186121 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2000 @07:19AM (#1036381)
    A system very similar to what you advocate has been described in some detail in Orson Scott Card's book Ender's Game. In that book, Card describes online bulletin boards where people "share information, organize and build consensus around issues," to quote your essay. A central part of this book is that two genius pre-teens write intelligent posts and counterposts in a way that manipulates public opion on crucial political issues, for their own advancement.

    So, my question is this: If someday the majority of people formulate their political opinions based on what they read in forums similar to Slashdot, will it be possible for individuals or organizations to manipulate the "public discourse" in such a way that advances their own agendas? If so, what type of steps would you advocate to reduce this type of "political trolling"?

  • How does the medium change the message? (Score:5)

    by Squirrel Killer ( 23450 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2000 @06:16AM (#1036382)
    I think most of us have a pretty good understanding of the ways in which the Internet affects the method of political communications. Instead of phone banking and lit drops, you can use e-mail lists and web sites, to cite just two examples.

    However, the more interesting question, in my mind, is how the Internet, as a medium, affects the message. How do you view political content changing as a response to the new methods available? Will political content move more to the extremes, since politicians can target more effectively, or will it move more mainstream, since more people are brought into the political arena.

    Beyond the message, how will the internet affect political outcomes? Are there any potential policy options that become possible with the new methods available?

    -sk

  • Candidates and their records. (Score:5)

    by Remus Shepherd ( 32833 ) <remus@panix.com> on Wednesday May 31, 2000 @07:46AM (#1036383) Homepage
    You talk about what the political parties should do to improve their websites, but don't mention what people outside political circles can accomplish. The websites you list in your article do *not* have what everyone says they want: An unbiased checklist of issues referenced to the candidates and their voting record.

    Forget the political parties for a moment, as I don't believe they'll ever report unbiased information. That leaves us, the people.

    Do you think there is room for a grassroots organization to collect the voting histories of candidates and publicize their records? If so, why doesn't such an organization already exist? Could such an organization thrive, or would it be besieged by political candidates who don't want their true voting histories known?
  • So why do Internet political polls always generate results which are more skewed towards the libertarian philosophy? Is it because they don't "count" and so people feel more free to vote how they feel? Or is it because people who are drawn to the net value freedom more than security (insert obligatory Benj. Franklin quote here)?
    -russ

  • Will candidates ever really do this? (Score:5)

    by El Volio ( 40489 ) on Wednesday May 31, 2000 @06:19AM (#1036385) Homepage
    Interesting article. As a fairly neutral US citizen, it occurs to me that, to many, the ideas expressed here are applied versions of general democratic ideals. Most voters would like to see more information about what candidates actually are proposing, and many want objective comparisons from unbiased sources.

    But that's not politics. Never has been, and probably never will be.

    So here's the question: Do you think that candidate sites are ever actually likely to provide objective data? Or do you think there will ever be a truly unbiased, trusted source (perhaps like the way the media should be) where specific information about tax cut proposals and so forth will be located?

  • Question:
    Can we realistically say that the internet is making a difference in the political process? Can a basically unknown candidate like Ralph Nader get a resonable number of votes thanks to just his web site? Or are people really just going to the web sites of the candidates they hear about on television? In the closed capitalist mind space we inhabit, big monetary interests determine the range of possibilities people think are viable. [zmag.org]

    According to a recent IBM/Altavista study [wego.com], even on the net the big money sites like Yahoo "basically control the flow of information". So can we really think that the net is going to suddenly bring us democracy despite the nondemocratic nature [zmag.org] of our entire economy/political system?

    Vote for Ralph Nader. [votenader.com] Period. thanks! his web site kicks ass too.

    michael

    ___________________________
    Michael Cardenas
    http://www.fiu.edu/~mcarde02
    http://www.deneba.com/linux

Slashdot Top Deals

If you have a procedure with 10 parameters, you probably missed some.

Close