The citizens of the United States of America must continue to embrace electronic methods as a means to gather, collaborate, and plan. Those who understand these methods must educate those who do not, and we must use these tools, wisely and frequently, to accelerate progress and equality. The Internet and the seemingly unstoppable sharing and dissemination of information are invaluable assets to the well-being of our citizens. However, the adoption of an electronic direct democracy would be a step in the wrong direction and an invitation to disaster.
Even with the surge in voter turnout and political interest that was sparked by the futuristic nature of the 2008 presidential election (including the unprecedented amount of online citizen action), I believe that it is too early to profess faith in the staying power of this renewed interest in our government’s actions. Therefore, it is too early to claim that the primary methods by which President Obama’s campaign successfully educated and mobilized voters (electronic methods) are the solution to an unaware, uninvolved, and uneducated populace. James Crabtree, in “Civic hacking: a new agenda for e-democracy,” says it all boils down to one "basic problem: if someone isn’t interested in politics, and they don’t see the point in taking part, doing it online is not going to help.” While we did see an inspiring rise in voter interest and turnout in 2008, it was primarily an interest in the election for the Presidency, and I think we can all agree that it will take an act of God for anyone to get anywhere near as excited about the race for Secretary of Agriculture (much less the many facets of a proposition to allot taxpayer money for a variety of new construction projects).
What I fear most about putting our democracy (flawed as our representation may be) directly in the hands of those citizens who are willing and able to get to a computer and cast a vote is the immense power and certain involvement of those individuals and entities who will make it their business to motivate and influence these same voters. At a time when our focus lies everywhere but Washington, when the average citizen is trying to find work, keep work, keep the kids in good schools, keep the wife happy, and keep the car running, there is little time to devote to staying abreast of every issue on the ballot. This means that we simply do not have the time to make the informed decisions necessary to participate in a successful direct democracy. Way back in 2006, while discussing the implementation of such a system, Professor Nat Irvin, of the Babcock School of Management at Wake Forest University, suggested that “the challenge that we face with… too many of these initiatives… is that basically people just don't know what they are voting for.” That quote is from a radio broadcast, which proves difficult to edit, and I encourage you to listen to the whole discussion here. Professor Irvin goes on to summarize what I (and other opponents of an electronic direct democracy) fear most: “And what happens is the people that have the most money will sway public opinion, and I think that's one of those downsides of having a direct democracy.”
Government is big, almost unimaginably so. The decisions being made daily in Washington, and in state capitals across the nation, simply do not cross the mind of the average working American. As much as we need to continue changing the way business is done in Washington, it would be disastrous to begin doing all of the business ourselves. Instead, we must simplify the processes of government, strengthen communities by helping them help themselves, and continue to carefully choose leaders who will represent us honestly, accurately, and efficiently.
-RW
No comments:
Post a Comment