INTERNET FUELS PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

Commentary: Internet can strengthen democracy

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/08/26/newmark.democracy/

August 26, 2008 -- Updated 0117 GMT (0917 HKT)

By Craig NewmarkSpecial to CNN

Editor's Note: Craig Newmark was working as a San Francisco-based computer programmer in the 1990s when he started e-mailing friends about local events. His simple Web site has grown into Craigslist, which provides classified ads and forums for more than 500 cities in over 50 countries. This commentary by Newmark, a Barack Obama supporter, is one of a series from McCain and Obama supporters attending party conventions.

"How do we build what some call 'participatory democracy'?" asks Craig Newmark.

SAN FRANCISCO, California (CNN) -- Like most people, I really don't want to be bothered with politics. On a gut level, it seems to be the province of the popular kids, and I'm a nerd. (Plastic pocket protector, thick black glasses taped together, that was me in school.)

Now, my day job is customer service for a Web site I founded, helping tens of millions of people. I'm in touch with a lot of everyday human concerns, that's the gig. Every day, I connect with people across America who want to make things better, a new generation committed to civic engagement.

To that end, people are using the Internet as the platform for tools for elections and governance. Speaking as a nerd, I love the technology, but what really matters is the means by which we all can use the Net to strengthen democracy in the USA. We can address practical problems and also better realize the vision of the Founding Fathers.

Nationally, the Howard Dean presidential campaign pioneered the use of the Net for grassroots campaigning, involving ordinary people in the election process. The Net proved to be an effective tool for organization and fundraising. However, this campaign didn't quite reach critical mass, perhaps because there weren't enough Americans with high-speed Internet connections at the time.

In this electoral cycle, we see campaigns like the Barack Obama campaign using the Net for organizing and fundraising very successfully. Additionally, we're seeing the Obama campaign use the Net to battle disinformation campaigns. For example, rumors that he's a Muslim or wants to raise taxes for ordinary Americans.

The key is that the campaigns manage to get ordinary people involved, including people like me who'd rather not be bothered with politics.

After the participatory campaign, how do we build what some call "participatory democracy" or "networked democracy?"

Here are several areas where people are starting to make that real:

311: Customer service for government -- In New York and San Francisco, California, people can call 311 for city services. For example, you can get a pothole fixed, or find out how to get a license. In the future, it will be possible to make direct use of 311 systems over the Net. I feel all levels and departments of

U.S. government should provide customer service this way.

New York and San Francisco have made a good start, and interestingly enough, the Transportation Security Administration is doing a good job with its

blog. Transparency and accountability -- Money plays a much larger role in government than a democracy can survive. Some companies find it's easier to lobby for privileges than to compete in a free market. A notorious example of that involves "no-bid contracts." Sunlight Foundation is the hub of a network that allows people to blog about how lobbyists and others use cash in ways that might not survive public scrutiny.
Take a look at MapLight.org, Pass223.com, and Congresspedia.org, for examples. I feel all government action should be made visible to the public, probably including all contributions by lobbyists.

Supporting the troops -- There are small things we can do, like supporting the new GI Bill and helping get adequate medical care for veterans and their families and the Iraq and Afghanistan veterans of America. The Net helps veterans in obvious ways, like awareness and fundraising. Even better, it connects citizens with the soldiers and military families who need a hand, like the Yellow Ribbon Fund, Adopt A Platoon and Any Solider. The theme is to get help directly to the people who need it, with the least middlemen possible. The focus of much of this is the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, who helped pass the new GI Bill.

The Permanent Town Hall -- Americans overall are pretty smart and we know how to run things, providing we can overcome the privileged trying for more privileges. The problem involves too many voices providing a wide range of ideas of varying quality. We need Internet-based platforms that people can use to voice needs and suggestions, with means by which the participants can rate the priority and usefulness of those statements.

Such systems exist in their infancy, like the ratings on Amazon.com and the filtering provided in Slashdot.org. The first of these is already happening and we need to recognize their importance and accelerate their adoption.

The last requires more work, but is more important. American leaders are surrounded by people who filter input and who can isolate the leader in a bubble of disinformation. (Symptoms include low approval ratings or not knowing how many houses one owns.)

iReport.com: Watch Newmark's iReport endorsing Obama

However, if you know how Americans use the Net to talk, you can easily stay in touch with real people.

Speaking as a customer service rep, that's the real deal.

INTERNET PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY UNDER OBAMA

A couple of articles in response to Obama's http://www.change.gov/ transitional website and the prospects of internet technologies broadening participatory democracy under an Obama administration. - Editor

Under Obama, a newly interactive government?

The president-elect aims to use the Internet to make government more participatory.

By Alexandra Marks Staff writer / November 13, 2008 edition
New York
Source: http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2008/11/13/under-obama-a-newly-interactive-government/

Want to give Barack Obama a piece of your mind about what’s wrong with the United States government? Just go to www.change.gov and click on “Share Your Ideas.”

A man named John from Seattle did: “I am so tired of special interests getting the best of us all.”

So did Lexington from San Diego: “I’d like to see an agenda that focuses on promoting transparency….”

The website is the official, online face of the Office of the President Elect. It gives a first glimpse of how Mr. Obama intends to harness technology to create a cutting-edge, participatory democracy in a similar way he used Internet connectivity to transform campaigning.

The idea is premised on the digital world’s potential to transform the US into one large cyber town-hall meeting: Every citizen will ideally have a window into the workings of government and an opportunity to tell elected leaders exactly what they think of it.

It’s an idealistic notion that will require some concrete changes – from a large investment in upgrading government computers to a change in the rules and regulations that guide government employees. Most important, it will require a radical transformation of the entrenched culture of secrecy and the dominance of special interests that define how Washington operates.

“This will be the first president who has an opportunity to use interactive technology in ways we’ve never seen – it really is remarkable,” says Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a nonprofit organization that promotes greater government accountability and transparency in Washington. “What was so unique about the Obama campaign [was] that interactivity was real. When people commented on something, they saw things happen. That’s what the people are expecting the president to do now.”

Obama will not be the first online president. That was Bill Clinton, who set up the White House’s first website in 1994 and in 1996 ordered all federal agencies to get online as well. The websites were pretty rudimentary sources of information. President Bush took that a step further, turning the White House website into a “repository of all the things the president was doing on that day,” according to David Almacy, who was the White House’s Internet director from 2005 to 2007.

But as Mr. Almacy discovered, much of what the White House could do was constrained by a lack of resources. He had a staff of six to run the White House’s Internet operations. The Obama campaign had 95 people. Then there are the federal rules and regulations.

For instance, when Mr. Bush went to New Orleans in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina, he urged Americans to log on to RedCross.org. Almacy decided to put up a link on the White House website. Within hours, the White House counsel’s office was directing him to take the link down because it might be perceived as endorsing one organization over another, says Almacy.

There are privacy questions, too. Many websites use “cookies,” electronic calling cards that websites leave on your computer to identify you if you return. Federal privacy policy discourages their use, saying there should be a “presumption” that they’re not used on federal websites.

But there is a loophole. Cookies can be used if an agency can demonstrate a compelling need and gets special permission. The Obama transition team is taking advantage of that. Change.gov uses cookies and states that in its privacy policy.

“Obama will probably run into some more rules that are going to need amending,” says Robert Bluey, director of the Center for Media and Public Policy at the Heritage Foundation. “But I think it’s absolutely great that people will have more opportunity to have a say in government and it’s pretty evident from change.gov that’s the direction that Obama’s going to take.”

Obama has set out a clear road map as to how he hopes to accomplish that. It starts with the appointment of a chief technology officer with cabinet-level powers who will oversee technological operations across the government.

“Most people from the 20th century think of technology as a separate issue from others like healthcare or energy, but it’s not just one of many issues [like one of many slices of a pie], it’s the pan that supports innovation and change for all of the other issues,” says Andrew Rasiej, copresident of techpresident.com. “It’s essential that the Obama administration put someone in a position who understands that.”

Federal employees will also have to change how they operate, setting up pilots in citizen participation, which means “Wikis [websites where visitors can change the content], comment sections, collaborative projects, public review of pending policies, and online dialogues,” says Mr. Bass.

That may not sit well with some longtime federal employees. “It’s a radical change,” says Ari Schwartz, vice president of the Center for Democracy and Technology. “But it’s in line with the way our government is supposed to work.”

Then there’s the larger question of whether a citizenry that’s disillusioned with government is ready to get more involved. The optimists here abound.

“What’s been proven through this election process is that there’s a newly engaged and empowered citizenry that is ready, able, and willing to partner with the Obama administration on rebooting American democracy in a 21st-century model of participation,” says Mr.Rasiej.

__________________________________________________________________________________

The Obama Team's Online Transition

CBS Tech Analyst Larry Magid Looks At How A Web 2.0 Campaign Is Going Presidential

SILICON VALLEY, Calif. Nov. 14, 2008
Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/14/scitech/pcanswer/main4602335.shtml

(CBS) When it comes to the use of technology, President Obama will have a hard act to follow - candidate Obama.

As has been widely pointed out, the Obama campaign was masterful in the way it used the Web, social networking sites, text messaging and other technology to assure its victory on Nov. 4. In addition to raising consciousness and money online, the campaign even used text messaging to remind people to go to the polls.

The Obama Web site made it very easy for people to donate money, find local events and - as did John McCain’s site - give supporters online access to a phone bank of voters to help spread the word and get out the vote.

But now that we’re in a transitional period, the question is how the incoming administration will continue to use technology to further the president’s agenda. A sitting president isn’t in the same position as a presidential candidate. For example, it’s not at all clear to me whether he can legally use his campaign e-mail or text messaging lists to promote his presidential agenda.

But we do have a clue as to one way he might use technology. The “Office of the President-Elect” has a new Web site called simply change.gov, which appears to be almost an extension of Obama’s presidential campaign.

It shows news stories, including an embedded MSNBC video of transition team Co-chair Valerie Jarret’s appearance on “Meet the Press” last Sunday. There is also a link to Obama’s radio address from last Saturday and, of course, a video of Obama’s victory speech from election night.

There's also a bit of meat on this site, including information about the president’s Cabinet and - perhaps of great interest to some - information about how to apply for a job at the White House and other federal agencies, including an “online expression of interest form” for job seekers to put their toe in the water.

But, if you’re inclined to express an interest, the site warns that "if and when you are considered for a specific position, you will be asked to fill out additional forms, including financial disclosures, and be subject to other reviews which may include FBI background checks."

As the New York Times has reported, candidates for high ranking jobs and cabinet positions will also be asked to provide detailed information about their backgrounds, including their online personas; any emails or blog posts that might embarrass the President-elect, and any profiles on Facebook or other social networks and "aliases" or "handles" used to communicate over the Internet.

I wonder if they will scrutinize your list of MySpace or Facebook friends to see who you've been "palling around" with online.

Change.gov also includes a “blog,” but aside from the fact that it’s organized in reverse chronological order, it’s not all that bloggish. It’s mostly well polished short articles and a couple of videos but, unlike many blogs, there are no links for user comments.

There is a link where you can “share your story” about “what this campaign and this election means to you.” I’m not sure if they’re deliberately still calling it a campaign as if to say that there are still struggles ahead or if they just cloned this from the old campaign Web site and forgot to update the language.

Speaking of updating, CNET’s Delcan McCullagh wrote here on CBSNews.com that the site initially had detailed agendas for Homeland Security and technology that were deleted over the weekend, to be replaced by “a vague statement saying that Obama and running mate Joe Biden have a ‘comprehensive and detailed agenda’” that will “‘bring about the kind of change America needs.’”

The deletion of that agenda could very well be the beginning of recognition that Obama is no longer in the mode of making campaign promises but on the verge of having to deliver actual policy.

That’s a natural transition that all presidents-elect have had to deal with, but in the past they weren’t quite as exposed to online scrutiny as is this incoming administration.

Although it’s not exactly what I’m looking for, I am pleased to see that change.gov also has a place where visitors can share their "vision for what America can be, where President-elect Obama should lead this country. Where should we start together?” It falls way short of what I’d like to see in terms of participatory democracy, but it is a start.

The incoming administration can start by using the Internet to fulfill its promise to make government more transparent, by using the Internet to share information on legislation and policy discussions. But to do so effectively, it must be in a way we can all understand and with a mechanism for people to have their voices heard.

To be understandable, information can't just be in government-speak. The Library of Congress's THOMAS Web site has long made it possible for citizens to see the text of proposed legislation but I take my hat off to any layperson who can actually understand the text of a congressional bill. What's needed is for non-partisan interpreters to objectively explain these bills in language that we can all understand.

We also need a transparent feedback mechanism where citizens have the option of sharing their opinions, not only with the administration, but with fellow citizens through blogs and forums. I would like to see the President (or at least his surrogates) actively participate in an open online discussion. Admittedly, that could get so lengthy as to be become unwieldy but if these discussions do blossom, I'm sure news media and bloggers who follow these discussions will bring interesting nuggets to light.

Change.gov is clearly a work in progress which is certainly understandable considering how little time has passed since the election. My hope is that the administration will extend this effort into something that truly does involve citizens in government. We can all use a little more sunshine.

By Larry Magid

APPS FOR DEMOCRACY - INNOVATION CHALLENGE FOR PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

iStrategyLabs Presents: Apps for Democracy - "An Innovation Challenge" to Visualize DC's Open Public Data

Last update: 6:00 a.m. EDT Oct. 20, 2008

Source: http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/istrategylabs-presents-apps-democracy--/story.aspx?guid=%7B592BF682-4166-4171-8F5E-85B36A083A09%7D&dist=hppr

WASHINGTON, Oct 20, 2008 (BUSINESS WIRE) -- The District of Columbia's Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO), in collaboration with iStrategyLabs, today announced the launch of the Apps for Democracy - "An Innovation Challenge" for visualizing DC's public data. The intention of this competition is to reward technology developers with cash prizes and public recognition for creating applications that are useful for the DC government and the citizens, visitors and businesses of Washington, DC.

The contest will serve as a catalyst to visualize OCTO's data so it will be useful to the citizens of DC, improving their quality of life; foster innovation in the DC technology community resulting in startup formation and growth; solve the technology challenges of OCTO through more cost effective open collaboration; and work towards a new model for government/private sector/citizen cross collaboration that can be utilized repeatedly to solve OCTO's challenges and serve as an example for other municipalities.

Apps for Democracy will feature 60 cash prizes from $2000 to $100 dollars for a total of $20,000 in prizes. Developers and designers will compete by creating web applications, widgets, Google Maps-mashups (and other maps mash-ups), iPhone apps, Facebook apps, and other digital utilities that visualize OCTO's Data Catalog, which provides real-time data from multiple agencies to citizens - a catalyst ensuring agencies operate as more responsive, better performing organizations.

"The Apps for Democracy contest is part of our drive toward digital democracy in the nation's capital," said District CTO Vivek Kundra. "Especially in these difficult economic times, it's crucial to the government's mission to find more efficient and impactful methods for delivering an even higher level of service for a fraction of the cost. We are ushering in a new age of participatory democracy, one in which technology is developed by the people for the people."

Who: This contest is open to everyone.
What: Submission guidelines, meet-up notifications and awards structure can be found at appsfordemocracy.org. Submission must be release as open source code.
When: The contest starts 10/13 and ends at 11:59pm on 11/12. The awards ceremony will take place on 11/13. A kick-off happy hour will be hosted on 10/16 and 4 open innovation labs will hosted each weekend leading up to the deadline enabling participants to find collaborators and to work onsite among their fellow technologists. The official social media tag is #APPS08.

About iStrategyLabs:
iStrategyLabs is a digital agency focused on providing clients with interactive strategy, experiential marketing and content creation services. We believe in empowering the creative and technology communities by programming events and providing value to communities online and off in fun and innovative ways.

Visit www.istrategylabs.com or grab creative assets for articles/posts here.
SOURCE: iStrategyLabs
iStrategyLabs
Peter Corbett, 202-683-9980
peter@istrategylabs.com

CRAIGSLIST FOUNDER ON DIRECT DEMOCRACY THROUGH e-DEMOCRACY

Craigslist founder Craig Newmark in the following piece presents his thoughts on the possibilites for more direct democracy facilitated by the internet. He discusses both how the internet is already aiding participatory democracy at the grassroots level by providing more access to information through the alternative media of independent bloggers and news media, and how more transparency and accountability in government is acheived through this freer flow of information. He also discusses the future possibilities for e-Democracy, truly direct democracy achieved by every citizen casting their vote on legislation via the internet. - Editor

New technology brings us to old idea

By CRAIG NEWMARK 10/2/08 4:56 AM EDT
Source: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14183.html

Americans this election season are using the Internet to vastly expand their ability to participate directly in our democracy, but it’s just a beginning. Over the next 20 years, our governments will adopt a form of direct democracy envisioned by the Founding Fathers that previously was impossible to carry out.

Two hundred years ago, Thomas Paine, Ben Franklin and the other forefathers of today’s bloggers embraced the notion that government should function with the consent of the governed. Key to the success of the idea was exploiting communications technology, including the printing press and the postal service.

Based on similar efforts in the ancient Roman republic and Britain, the Founders designed a government based on a small number of elected representatives, with a separate judiciary. Checks and balances were provided so that one group couldn’t seize power. A free press served as a further check against tyranny.

In recent years, the balances have seriously eroded, but at the same time, a new communication technology, the Internet, has flourished.

People use the Net as their own printing press, giving them a voice and a reach they’ve never had before, for better or for worse. They are networking at the grass-roots level more effectively than ever before.

In politics, Democrat Howard Dean pioneered use of the Net for organizing and fundraising in his 2004 presidential bid. He was ahead of his time, though, because broadband technology had not yet reached critical mass, with the resulting spike in traffic.

Given the low cost of Net advertising of any sort, it appears the 2008 election starts the transition from very expensive, top-down campaigns to less expensive, network-driven ones.

Following Dean’s example, many candidates this year are using the Net for fundraising and organizing with extraordinary effect. Barack Obama’s campaign is based largely on grass-roots networking and community organizing, with an eye toward boosting grass-roots participation in government. John McCain’s campaign has not tapped into the Net as systematically or effectively, but many McCain supporters are using it among themselves.

People also are using the Net to strengthen or debunk political claims, engaging in levels of fact-checking that the traditional press was unable or unwilling to do.

Currently, even sitting politicians with the best of intentions find it necessary to spend an inordinate amount of time fundraising rather than governing. This election accelerates the trend to something else: People are using the Net for governance in ways that have barely been noticed.

New York and San Francisco are experimenting with telephone customer service systems that soon will be complemented by Net-based systems. Using the Internet, people will be able to navigate through local government to get things done — the ultimate in pothole politics.

Another emerging area of grass-roots, networked democracy involves transparency and accountability. The idea is that if we all see how the sausage is made, it will facilitate reform throughout the country.

A lot of accountability data are already available to the public — but in forms that limit their use and accessibility. For instance, there are loads of information about lobbyist contributions to congressmen and what they presumably get in return, such as sweetheart contracts.

The Sunlight Foundation is harnessing a network of organizations to build online tools so anyone can examine the data. For example, MAPLight.org focuses on the connection between money and politics, and the Center for Media and Democracy runs Congresspedia.org, which is basically a Wikipedia-like site for the U.S. Congress. (Full disclosure: I’m on the board of Sunlight.)

It’s still a struggle sometimes getting the sun to shine in on Capitol Hill. Online access to Senate election data is being obstructed by Sens. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and John Ensign (R-Nev.), but their efforts are being countered online by Pass223.com.

In the fullest expression of direct democracy, every citizen would vote on every piece of legislation; representative democracy was, until now, the best compromise. The new challenge is how to give many millions of citizens a voice in government without overwhelming the system.

There are two approaches, both of which rely on technology that is available but not yet fully exploited. In online democracy, people need verifiable identities, the online equivalent of a driver’s license. Today, one example is the “digital certificate,” which, if widely disseminated, could help positively identify people on the Net and minimize fraud.

Congressmen and Hill staffers tell me that messages from verified people in their districts carry far more weight than blind e-mails that possibly are mass-produced. In other words, communications from known constituents are read, but form e-mails may not be. That’s one step closer to networked democracy.

Another approach involves large-scale discussion boards where citizens with verified identities can discuss issues online. The challenge is sorting the wheat from the chaff, but a solution is to let citizens do the work by filtering up the best ideas. Pioneers in this sort of scheme include Slashdot.org, Digg.com, and even Amazon.com.

Such systems, in theory, need hundreds of millions of citizens. In practice, they would number far fewer. Most people, including myself, would rather not be bothered with politics. From my day job, I’d guess that the number of interested citizens would range from 1 percent to 10 percent of the population.

Universal access to such systems must overcome the “digital divide,” but I believe that could be solved by using mobile phones to almost universally plug citizens into the process.

However it is done, we’re on the verge of realizing the vision of democracy upon which America was formed, from the grass roots up. It’s time to recognize what’s happening and get serious about nurturing it.

Craig Newmark is the founder of and chief of customer service for Craigslist.

ONEWEBDAY: INTERNET FREEDOM AND PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

Ask For Internet Freedom On Third OneWebDay

By MARK A. HART
Special to the Tribune
Published: September 20, 2008

Source: http://www2.tbo.com/content/2008/sep/20/na-ask-for-internet-freedom-on-third-onewebday/

Seven months ago I needed my teenage son to explain YouTube to me. Now I'm not only appearing on YouTube but also writing proposals for others to do so.

So it is with a sense of bemusement that I anticipate the third annual OneWebDay on Monday, touted by Internet activists as akin to an Earth Day celebration focusing on the impact the Web has had on participatory democracy.

Much like the advent of cable TV in the 1980s brought us public, educational and government stations, the Internet is vastly expanding the amount of public information available to ordinary citizens.

As a former newsman, I find the way digital technology is eroding some of the revenue base for traditional journalism alarming.

However, it's hard to argue with millions using e-mail to contact Congress, activists using social network sites like Facebook to organize rallies and raise money for causes, and 175,000 new blogs being created daily.

It's new media, not news media, provided the public can get it.

For example, the Federal Communications Commission recently sanctioned Comcast for blocking traffic sent over its network via a program frequently used to share video.

Meantime, telecom companies make no secret of their plans to create fast and slow lanes on the Internet, steering the public towards their preferred Web sites. Likely left behind will be those on low incomes, rural communities and the elderly.

So mark OneWebDay by e-mailing Congress and the FCC to bridge the digital divide and ensure Internet freedom.

Mark A. Hart is statewide organizer for the Florida Media Coalition. The pro-media advocacy group is based in Tampa.

For more on OneWebDay: http://onewebday.org/

NEW INTERNET DIRECT DEMOCRACY PARTY ANNOUNCES CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATE

A new internet based party in Boston similar to others such as the Senator Online Party of Australia has chosen a candidate to run for the 8th congressional district. If the candidate should win the election, he/she will be bound by agreement to vote on all legislation in accordance with the results the of the party's online polling system. Visit the party's website here: http://www.freegovernment.org/ - Editor

New party takes aim at Congressional seat

By JOHN RUCH July 25, 2008

Source: http://jamaicaplaingazette.com/node/2907

A new political party that calls for rule by online opinion polls claims to have a candidate for the local 8th Congressional District seat currently held by US Rep. Mike Capuano.

The Free Government Party, which has yet to identify its nominee, did not respond to a request for comment for this article. Alison Mills, a spokesperson for Capuano, declined to comment.

The Boston-based party exists mainly as the web site FreeGovernment.org, which apparently was launched on this year’s Fourth of July. The party has no political platform beyond creating a way for citizens to vote on individual pieces of legislation via online polls. The idea is that this would make government “free, convenient, and transparent.”

The party intends to run a candidate who would act like a voting machine. “If elected, you will be bound by contract to act as no more than [a] proxy for our district by voting on bills only as do online verified voters, and by introducing and sponsoring bills only with significant support,” said the party’s open advertisement for a candidate. The ad was posted July 6 on the classified ad web site Craigslist.

The party’s web site claims that about a week after posting the ad, it selected an unnamed candidate for the Nov. 4 election. The 8th Congressional District is the only district where the party will run a candidate. It is unclear why the district was chosen. The site appears to make no references to Capuano.

To get on the ballot, the candidate will have to submit at least 2,000 voter signatures to local election officials. The deadline is next Tuesday, July 29.

The party calls itself a nonprofit organization, though it did not appear to be registered with the Secretary of State’s Office as of last week. It appears the party is the brainchild of a software developer named Foy Savas and a dental student named Sophia Chou.

The web site features discussion forums and online polls. It is intended as a place to review pending Congressional bills and propose new ones. If the party had a member in Congress, that member would cast votes mirroring the site’s online poll results.

While the site theoretically has the potential for creating direct democracy, its real goal is establishing a representative system of “advisers.” Advisers are like super-members of the site who commit to voting on behalf of many other site members. Site members can select advisers who seem to match their politics and can be trusted to vote their way, allowing for a “convenient hands-off approach to voting” on the many bills before Congress.

The party’s member in Congress would then obey the final results of the advisers’ total votes. To ensure that voting is representative of the district, the party proposes that polls must have a quorum of votes equal to 50 percent of the number of votes the candidate received on Election Day. It is unclear what the member of Congress would be expected to do if there was no quorum, or in political situations that do not involve votes.

In essence, the site would create a kind of shadow Congress that ensures at least some citizens would review all legislation before its official vote.

Any person or group can be an adviser, and site members can appoint as many advisers as they want.

Voting access and voting fraud would seem to be significant issues with the process. If it were to win the seat, the party proposes spending part of the office budget on setting up a program that would cross-check the web site’s registered member list with lists of registered voters—basically, creating a shadow election department. The party acknowledges some sort of system would have to be created to allow people without Internet access to vote, but makes no suggestion about it.

It is also unclear how the site would avoid other political parties, lobbying organizations or other powerful interests from dominating the adviser positions.

Decision-making via online polls is becoming popular among new, reform-minded political parties. Another example is Britain’s Blah! Party, which uses online polls to help set the party’s agenda as a direct democracy method.

e-VotingBooth.com: VOTE TO HOLD OIL COMPANIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR OIL PRICES ON THE WEB

e-VotingBooth.com is an interactive website that attempts to record how the electorate would vote on each bill that comes before the U.S. congress. We applaud this effort because if the practice became widespread it would at least provide a public record of whether or not the will of the people is being accurately carried out by their elected representatives. Although this goal falls short of direct democracy because the votes registered on this and similar websites are not officially counted and have no legal bearing upon the legislation before congress, it can at least provide a gauge of the public sentiment. It also serves to begin the process of experimentation with the feasibility of technological systems that would be employed if the votes were to be officially registered at some time in the future when the people are granted the power to vote on federal legislation under a directly democratic system. The article below throws a spotlight on e-VotingBooth.com and invites people to weigh in on U.S Senate Bill 3044 which will attempt to hold oil companies accountable for the high fuel prices. First read the following mission statement form e-VotingBooth.com to understand how it works and why it was created. Also visit the site here: http://www.e-votingbooth.com/

Welcome to the website that puts Democracy in Your Hands!

How? By allowing you to “vote” on every single piece of legislation being considered by Congress. You can even add your own comments with your vote. Then, e-VotingBooth provides the “election results” to every member of Congress and the President before the Final Bill Vote in Congress.

e-VotingBooth drastically changes the mental calculus of Congressmen and the President of how to vote for a bill. e-VotingBooth adds a new voice, YOU, to their voting consideration and e-VotingBooth gives you significant power with your Congressmen and President.

You have power because e-VotingBooth tracks every vote you make, and our first site upgrade (coming soon) will provide your elected officials’ votes alongside yours for comparison. At any time you will see how they voted on each bill you voted. This will be particularly useful right before elections. For example, if you find a Representative, Senator or President voted against you 90% of the time you are far more likely to vote against him or her for re-election than if they had voted 90% with you. Now your elected officials are highly motivated to consider you and your neighbors’ votes—or suffer the consequences.

In essence, e-VotingBooth allows you to participate in the legislative process of the United States of America and easily track how your elected officials are serving you.

E-VotingBooth provides you with information to make an informed position on whether to allow them to continue working for you (their re-election fate). So dive in and be an active participant in the legislative process of the United States of America.


Vote to hold oil companies accountable for oil prices on the Web


June 29 2008


Source: http://cnewspubs.com/elections/modules/news/article.php?storyid=679

If you are tired of paying more than $4 per gallon for gasoline take action now: vote on U.S. Senate Bill 3044 on e-VotingBooth.com.

The Consumer-First Energy Act of 2008 is designed “to provide energy price relief and hold oil companies and other entities accountable for their actions with regard to high energy prices, and for other purposes.”

“e-VotingBooth.com is the only website where all Americans can vote on any pending bill in Congress,” said Steve Thompson, founder and president of e-VotingBooth.com, “converting the United States from a republic to a direct democracy. The site allows America to switch the focus from the individuals we elect to the legislation itself.”

Americans can vote at any time on any bill (once introduced), they're not tied to the voting schedule of any bill. They can even vote bills already enacted.

“While Americans have historically been able to write their Congressman or President, these actions are relatively diluted because they are only contacting individuals,” Thompson said, “whereas voting on e-VotingBooth.com aggregates every single American’s vote in that one respective bill, amplifying their power.” No other action is faster, easier or more effective than pulling up a bill and voting in e-VotingBooth.com.

e-VotingBooth.com is a non-partisan, private and veteran-owned company that assumes a fiduciary responsibility to provide this “public trust” as the only tool for all Americans to participate in the legislative process of the U.S. Congress. “We also believe e-VotingBooth.com is the perfect tool for all organizations and individuals who wish to remain neutral or apolitical, yet encourage their members to participate in the governance of our country,” said Thompson.

OBAMA, THE INTERNET, AND PARTICIPATORY DEMOCRACY

As the presidential race continually heats up, citizens make decisions about how they will be involved in campaigns or promoting their favorite candidate. But which candidate will make citizen participation more accessible to all? This article focuses on how Obama uses the internet as a mode of communication with voters and gives an interesting history of how previous presidents have used the latest technology of their time to spread their message. Will Obama's use of the internet be as successful as Franklin Delano Roosevelt's use of the radio? And how can the internet create a two-way mode of communication between the central government and constituents? Consider these questions while reading the following piece. -Editor

HisSpace

How would Obama’s success in online campaigning translate into governing?

by Marc Ambinder

Source: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/ambinder-obama

America’s politics have regularly been transformed by sudden changes in the way we communicate. And revolutions in communications technology have always bestowed great gifts on those politicians savvy enough to grasp their full potential. It is still unclear how far Barack Obama’s talent for online campaigning will take him. But it’s worth noting that some of the best-known presidents in U.S. history have stood at the vanguard of past communications revolutions—and that a few have used those revolutions not only to mobilize voters and reach the White House but also to consolidate power and change the direction of politics once they got there.

Improvements to the printing press helped Andrew Jackson form and organize the Democratic Party, and he courted newspaper editors and publishers, some of whom became members of his Cabinet, with a zeal then unknown among political leaders. But the postal service, which was coming into its own as he reached for the presidency, was perhaps even more important to his election and public image. Jackson’s exploits in the War of 1812 became well known thanks in large measure to the distribution network that the postal service had created, and his 1828 campaign—among the first to distribute biographical pamphlets by mail—reinforced his heroic image. As president, he turned the office of postmaster into a patronage position, expanded the postal network further—the historian Richard John has pointed out that by the middle of Jackson’s first term, there were 2,000 more postal workers in America than soldiers in the Army—and used it to keep his populist base rallied behind him.

Abraham Lincoln became a national celebrity, according to the historian Allen Guelzo’s new book, Lincoln and Douglas: The Debates That Defined America, when transcripts of those debates were reprinted nationwide in newspapers, which were just then reaching critical mass in distribution beyond the few Eastern cities where they had previously flourished. Newspapers enabled Lincoln, an odd-looking man with a reed-thin voice, to become a viable national candidate; it might even be argued that the idea of a “union” worth fighting for was conceivable because newspapers also enabled increasingly far-flung citizens to stay apprised of far-off events, and to envision themselves as part of a greater whole.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt used radio to make his case for a dramatic redefinition of government itself, quickly mastering the informal tone best suited to the medium. In his fireside chats, Roosevelt reached directly into American living rooms at pivotal moments of his presidency. His talks—which by turns soothed, educated, and pressed for change—held the New Deal together.

And of course John F. Kennedy famously rode into the White House thanks in part to the first televised presidential debate in U.S. history, in which his keen sense of the medium’s visual impact, plus a little makeup, enabled him to fashion the look of a winner (especially when compared with a pale and haggard Richard Nixon). Kennedy used TV primarily to create and maintain his public image, not as a governing tool, but he understood its strengths and limitations before his peers did, and his election and popularity resulted partly from that understanding.

The communications revolution under way today involves the Internet, of course, and if Barack Obama eventually wins the presidency, it will be in no small part because he has understood the medium more fully than his opponents do. His speeches play well on YouTube, which allows for more than the five-second sound bites that have characterized the television era. And he recognizes the importance of transparency and consistency at a time when access to everything a politician has ever said is at the fingertips of every voter. But as Joshua Green notes in the preceding pages, Obama has truly set himself apart by his campaign’s use of the Internet to organize support. No other candidate in this or any other election has ever built a support network like Obama’s. The campaign’s 8,000 Web-based affinity groups, 750,000 active volunteers, and 1,276,000 donors have provided him with an enormous financial and organizational advantage in the Democratic primary.

Obama clearly intends to use the Web, if he is elected president, to transform governance just as he has transformed campaigning. Notably, he has spoken of conducting “online fireside chats” as president. And when one imagines how Obama’s political army, presumably intact, might be mobilized to lobby for major legislation with just a few keystrokes, it becomes possible, for a moment at least, to imagine that he might change the political culture of Washington simply by overwhelming it.

What Obama seems to promise is, at its outer limits, a participatory democracy in which the opportunities for participation have been radically expanded. He proposes creating a public, Google-like database of every federal dollar spent. He aims to post every piece of non-emergency legislation online for five days before he signs it so that Americans can comment. A White House blog—also with comments—would be a near certainty. Overseeing this new apparatus would be a chief technology officer.

There is some precedent for Obama’s vision. The British government has already used the Web to try to increase interaction with its citizenry, to limited effect. In November 2006, it established a Web site for citizens seeking redress from their government, http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/. More than 29,000 petitions have since been submitted, and about 9.5 percent of Britons have signed at least one of them. The petitions range from the class-conscious (“Order a independent report to identify reasons that the living conditions of working class people are poor in relation to higher classes”) to the parochial (“We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to re-open sunderland ice rink”).

What does the government do with the petitions? It says it reads them and directs them, at its discretion, to the appropriate department; sometimes the department responds. Advocates of the system note that it enables the government to monitor public wants and attitudes in a way that opinion polling doesn’t.

Those in Obama’s campaign who think about technology and government see the U.K. site as merely a baby step—the first of many ways that Americans might interact with a President Obama. But the British example also helps show the limits of online participatory government. Communication and transparency are virtues only up to a point; as students of bureaucracies know, both eventually become an enemy to efficiency. Moreover, if an Obama presidency invited more input than it could reasonably weigh and respond to, it would quickly squander the networking capital that the campaign has built.

Today Obama is like a brand, his campaign like a $250 million company, and the voters like customers; the persuasion flows one way. If he becomes president, then power, authority, and legitimacy will flow in both directions; voters who are now keen to support the idea of Obama may push against his initiatives in office, sometimes unpredictably.

Indeed, in recent years the Web has without question generated and focused enough public pressure to force the hands of politicians on several occasions. So far, though, this pressure has been created spontaneously—and it has worked to the distinct disadvantage of the executive branch.

When President Bush nominated his longtime friend Harriet Miers to be a Supreme Court justice, wired conservative activists revolted. Minutes after the news broke, a blogger searched the federal campaign database and found that Miers had contributed to Democrats in the past, provoking a wave of questions about her ideological bona fides. In the space of a few hours, conservative outrage coalesced, and activists succeeded in throwing an unprepared White House and Republican National Committee off message; talk radio, the ether of the conservative movement, was filled with confusion, sown by angry e-mails and phone calls. I remember a senior GOP official asking me that night, “What the hell just happened?” It would take the RNC many hours to figure out that bloggers were generating the heat, and that bloggers had to be tended to first if the fire was to be put out.

More recently, the “netroots”—liberal Democrats organized online—have kept pressure on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to avoid compromise with Republicans on national-security legislation the president calls critical. They’ve organized online petitions and sent e-mails to key staff members; they’ve raised money to air issue-advocacy ads. The Daily Kos Web site regularly asks its millions of readers to evaluate the performance of their congressional leaders, and, just as regularly, members of those leaders’ staffs check to see whether their bosses have had a good or a bad month. Top Democrats are relying more and more on netroots money to fund their political action committees, so these evaluations matter.

The lesson here seems obvious enough: technology has concentrated a fair amount of political power in hubs outside Washington. But Washington has not harnessed that power successfully.

If Obama wins, and if he can harness the Web as a unifying force once the voting is done, he could be a powerful president indeed—the kind that might even deliver on some of the audacious promises that Obama the candidate has made. But the Web, like the politics it seeks to transform, is unruly and fickle. The online networks that have turbocharged Obama’s candidacy could end up hemming him in, and even stalling his agenda, as president.

PETE ASHDOWN OF UTAH: WIKI PLATFORM INNOVATOR

Pete Ashdown, a 2006 senatorial Candidate from Utah became the first candidate ever to utilize open source politics in the form of a Wiki site. In his bid against long time Utah incumbent conservative Orrin Hatch, Ashdown opened his campaign up to the public by creating a Wiki site on which potential voters could contribute to the structuring and content of his campaign platform. Although not surpisingly he did not defeat the well entrenched Orrin Hatch, his campaign innovation has since been used by candidates such as Segolene Royal, the socialist candidate in last years election in France. She also created a site where voters could contribute to her platform. Since her defeat by Nicolas Zarkozy, Segolene Royal has introduced participatory budgeting in her home province of Poitou Charentes, and has launched a collaborative effort with the governments of Tuscany, Italy, and Catalonia, Spain to introduce participatory democracy in those regions and promote it throughout Europe. See our previous post on Segolene Royal (click here), and the related links by coutry on our resource page (click here) If more candidates in the U.S. followed the lead of these individuals in their open source campaigns , the result we be a much more directly democratic process within the representative system, with the public having direct control over the platforms of the candidates, and thereby the means to hold them accountable in delivering upon the expressed will of the electorate. It would be a step in the right direction, that of a more participatory and just system. - Editor

Pete Ashdown - Open Source Politics

Source: http://www.re-public.gr/en/?p=145

Being the first politician to to use a wiki to develop his campaign platform for the 2006 US Senate election in Utah, Pete Ashdown makes the case for open source politics.

An interview to Pavlos Hatzopoulos for Re-public

Pavlos Hatzopoulos: What is wrong with traditional party politics? Can the extended use of collaborative technologies reverse this situation?

Pete Ashdown: Your own Aristotle said “In a democracy the poor will have more power than the rich, because there are more of them, and the will of the majority is supreme.” Although I do not believe in the majority crushing the rights of the minority, this statement has rarely been true.

Party politics is currently centered around money and who can raise the most. In spite of most politicians rejection of the claim, it is obvious most that the power goes to where the money is, and the voice of the rich is overheard above everyone else.

Collaborative technologies have the power to level this. The Internet is blind to wealth, ability, race, creed, gender, and background. A good idea presented through collaborative technologies will rise to the top and be implemented, regardless of the source. That is good for all including the minority.

P.H.: Would you consider your wiki senatorial campaign as a new way of making politics?

P.A.: It was the first use of a wiki for open policy discussion by a candidate anywhere. However, I was less interested in being “first” rather than simply opening my campaign to anyone who wanted to participate. Many were stunned to have that kind of access to a candidate. That is unfortunate, for who are our elected officials, but servants of the people? To have no access to them is to write them a blank check to do whatever they wish. As much as I hoped other candidates to follow my lead, I have seen none on a national scale do so. There have been some elected officials employing wikis for policy discussion, but nothing officially sanctioned. I am certain that this will continue to evolve and receive acceptance, for democracy requires advice and consent of the people. If they have these technologies in every other avenue of their lives, government will have to adopt them to keep up.

P.H.: Is the lack of citizens’ participation the problem, or the hierarchical framework through which this is usually channelled?

P.A.: Apathy and cynicism of the citizen sources from the overwhelming feeling of not being able to make a difference. “I am not heard, so why try?” This is the mantra of the disconnected citizen. By demonstrating they have a voice and using their input in decision making makes better leaders and more active citizens. The current hierarchy is absolutely at fault, but it is a descendant of governments run by aristocracies.

P.H.: To what extent did your campaign become decentralized and/or horizontal because of its emphasis on collaborative methods?

P.A.: The hierarchy of a traditional campaign was still present in
my race for the U.S. Senate. However, I would rate the value of the horizontal contributions from non-staffers as greater than what I received from staff and advisors. Most likely due to Aristotle’s idea, in that there were more of them instead of a hand-full inside the office. The gems of my platform came straight off submissions to my wiki.

P.H.: Would you elaborate on the concept of the “open source” political platform?

P.A.: In a traditional authorship, whether it be books, or software, you have a monolithic closed structure. You can petition Microsoft or your favorite author for a change in a future release, but in essence, the decision rests on the individual or company who controls the property. This is much like current democratic governments in that citizens are left to petition our representatives, but in the end our voices are secondary to the lobbyists who see them every day. Our consideration is minor in comparison to big donors.

With “Open Source”, anyone with a good contribution can be part of the process. With software, anyone with ability can write patches or add features. Wikipedia is demonstrating the collection and vetting of knowledge through the same “Open Source” techniques.

“Open Source” politics allows anyone with expertise or a good idea to contribute. Rhetoric and bias will stick out like a sort thumb on an emotionless “Wiki” page and lacking a cohesive defense, will sink to the bottom while the good workable ideas rise to the top. Solutions to problems are not partisan, they simply work. The cloistered party politics of the past will give way to open collaboration from people of all backgrounds working towards the common goal of a better life for all.

Further links:
Pete Ashdown's Wiki Site
Wired interview with Pete Ashdown
Wikidemocracy

10 DOWNING STREET'S e-PETITIONS vs. OBAMA'S PROPOSALS

10 Downing St. has set up a website where british citizenry can post their petitions to the prime minister. The petitions can gather signatories on the site, and completed petitions generate a response from the Prime Minister. It is unclear whether this site has in fact been a means for the public to influence policy, or merely a gimmick to allow people to believe that they have a voice in government. It's mere existence however is yet another example of how the internet can be a revolutionary tool in bringing direct democracy to bear on a large scale. The trick is to make the popular will binding, and create a system in which representatives are merely executors of that popular will. Barack Obama has proposed measures in his platform that would allow for much more significant citizen participation and transparency than this somewhat symbolic british measure. To learn more about his proposals see our previous post on the subject. (click here) It is encouraging to see such proposals reaching the mainstream but we must continue to build upon them and push for deeper direct democracy. - Editor


Click here to visit the P.M's e-petitions site

Source: http://www.pm.gov.uk/output/Page11051.asp

13 November 2007

There is a long-established tradition of members of the public presenting petitions at the door of Number 10 Downing Street. The e-Petitions service has been designed to offer a modern parallel, which is more convenient for the petitioner. Unlike paper-based petitions, this service also provides an opportunity for Number 10 to respond to every petitioner via email.

Since its launch in November 2006, the ePetitions site has proved to be a highly popular innovation, helping people communicate with Government and with the Prime Minister's Office. ePetitions has become a part of the landscape of debate in the UK.

The service allows any UK citizen to create a petition and collect signatures via the website. Petitioners are asked to meet basic criteria, but we aim to accept most petitions. The principal reasons for rejecting petitions so far have been obscenity, potential to cause offence, libel or duplication.

Facts and figures

Since its launch, the site has been very busy. The facts and figures to the end of October show:
Over 29,000 petitions have been submitted, of which over 8,500 are currently live and available for signing, over 6,000 have finished and 14,601 have been rejected outright.
There have been over 5.8 million signatures, originating from over 3.9 million different email addresses.

The most common reason for rejection is duplication - many users have commented that there are petitions on similar subjects clogging up the site. We are trying to eliminate too much duplication or overlap, although we need to balance that with the need to allow for the nuances of similar petitions.
The other common reasons for rejection are: legal issues, offensive language, party political content and issues outside the government's remit.

If a petition is rejected, petitioners are given a chance to reword their petition. Some users choose to resubmit their petitions, some prefer not to.

SENATOR ON-LINE: AUSTRALIA'S INTERNET BASED DIRECT DEMOCRATIC PARTY

An initiative is underway in Australia which has led to the creation of a new political party called Senator On-Line. The party is unique in that it is the first internet based party in Australia, and it seeks to elect representatives to office who have pledged to vote according to the will of the people, and not their own personal views. this will be achieved by an internet based popular poll being held for each bill brought before the parliament. The result of the poll will determine the way the Senator On-line senator votes on the bill, effectively creating a mixed direct/representative democracy in which the senator is merely a proxy representative executing the expressed will of the people. The Senator On-line party was officially registered and participated in the 2007 Australian election receiving over 8000 votes even though they entered only 2 months before the election. This bold experiment, if it succeeds, should certainly lead us to consider the possiblity of a similar initiative being implemented in the U.S.A. as a transitional step towards a more direct democratic system. - Editor

Senator On-Line is Australia's Only Internet Based Democratic Political Party

Source: http://www.senatoronline.org.au/

Senator On-Line is not aligned to any other political party… it is neither Liberal nor Labor.

Senator On-Line (‘SOL’) is a truly democratic party which will allow everyone on the Australian Electoral roll who has access to the internet to vote on every Bill put to Parliament and have its Senators vote in accordance with a clear majority view.

How did SOL go in the 2007 election?

Senator On-Line was approved shortly before the 2007 federal election was called. Senate counting continues and given we had only around two months to develop public awareness, spent no money on newspaper or TV advertising, we've received over 8000 votes nationally so far - a reasonable result and better than the national votes for four other parties.

We had over 1000 people who registered with us in the two months and emails offering support are continuing to roll in. We look forward to contesting the next election.

JOIN IN THE ELECTION COMMENTARY AND COMMUNITY DISCUSSION ON:

http://www.youtube.com/senatoronline
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5343394525
http://www.myspace.com/senator_online
http://www.bangthetable.com/senatoronline

When a SOL senator is elected a web site will be developed which will provide:

1. Accurate information and balanced argument on each Bill and important issues


2. The vast majority of those registered on the Australian Electoral roll the chance to have their say by voting on bills and issues facing our country


3. A tally of all votes which will then count in Parliament


4. Each person on the Australian Electoral roll will be entitled to one vote and only be allowed to vote once on each bill or issue.


5. SOL senators will have committed in writing to voting in line with the clear majority view of the SOL on-line voters.


6. Senator On-Line will enable broader community involvement in the political process and the shaping of our country.

If you like the concept, please register your details and tell others about SOL.

This is the pre-election website. To find out what will be available when SOL wins a Senate seat click here.