I'm having trouble resisting the urge to respond here.... so I won't
resist anymore :)
1.) The "electronic town hall" idea is not new, as appealing as it is on
its face. Ross Perot championed it in 1992, pretty much directly
channeling the arguments of the Progressive movement of the turn of the
(20th) century. The ballot propositions and recall provisions in many
western states' constitutions -- emphatically including California -- are
essentially holdovers from that movement. Note that not only has the
ballot proposition failed to increase popular involvement in California
politics, it's done the opposite: increase the influence of well-funded,
well-organized interests (usually big business, but every once in a while
labor) that are unchecked by the normal electoral process. From the
standpoint of democratic theory, the initiative/referendum process is a
dismal failure.
2.) While I would wholeheartedly support the idea of an OpenVote system, I
do think the problem to be addressed is at least as much social as it is
technical. Voting technologies were widely disparate and poorly controlled
for decades without any public outcry; then, after the 2000 election in
Florida, they suddenly became a major public issue. The problem of trust
between machines can be solved technologically; the problem of trust
between humans can be facilitated technologically, but requires social
intervention as well.
3.) The Freakonomics guys are right about the unintended consequences of
changes in voting technologies. Reducing the "cost" of voting may also
reduce the "value" of it, as they suggest, thereby potentially reducing
voting rates. Furthermore, the constitution contemplates voting day as
essentially a single moment in time -- it's supposed to be a "snapshot" of
the public sentiment at that time. Many simplification technologies serve
also to extend the time allowed to vote up to a month in some cases. What
happens if important events, campaign outcomes, etc., happen during that
month? Think of the several "october surprises" that have happened
during presidential campaigns. What's the "correct" measure of the public
sentiment?
4.) Finally, then I'll shut up and wait for the off-topic flames: at least
one strain of constitutional thought contemplates democratic engagement as
essentially conversational -- think of the New England town meeting as an
example, where disagreeing citizens are forced to air their disagreements
in dialogue with one another. Granted, this is far from what happens now.
But technologies and practices that further isolate citizens as they
choose and vote are probably ultimately bad for democratic practice.
Cheerio,
Andy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew J Perrin - andrew_perrin (at) unc.edu - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin
Assistant Professor of Sociology; Book Review Editor, _Social Forces_
University of North Carolina - CB#3210, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3210 USA
New Book: http://www.press.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/hfs.cgi/00/178592.ctl
--
TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug
TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/
TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
