Internet Voting and the US Social Forum
(First published in OpEdNews June 22, 2010
By William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
http://tinyurl.com/IntVUSSF)
The US Social Forum is taking place during the last week of this June in Detroit. It is a gathering of Progressives with the full spectrum of interests. One aim of the program is to discuss why our political efforts have produced so little results in what we all thought would be a favorable administration under Obama's lead. Our campaign of "health care, not warfare," for instance, was one big flop. Single payer never received a serious hearing in Congress or the White House. Our troops are still in Iraq, and their numbers in Afghanistan are multiplying, with no end in sight. Our hopes to nominate Progressive candidates in this year's Democratic primaries have also been dashed.
The murder rate in Mexico continues to sky-rocket as gangs fight for control over the illegal drug trade. Were these drugs to be de-criminalized, taxed, and regulated, business competition would replace murder, and the shameful number of non-violent folks in US prisons would dissipate. Tax revenues would increase, as they have in places where pot is legally sold for medical purposes, as in Los Angeles and other cities.
That Obama was slow to act on the Gulf of Mexico oil spill catastrophe is a direct result of our corrupt campaign financing laws. He and his aides firmly believe that wealthy corporations can be relied upon for advice in their areas of business. When BP lied, and told the president's advisers that they had it all under control, the advisers believed everything, and so the president delayed remedial action. This religious faith in corporate expertise is a defining factor throughout US policy. The need for corporate campaign contributions turns almost every US office-holder into a gullible sycophant of the super rich.
The US election system is a master of deception. It creates the illusion of democracy where none exists. The 2000 election is clear evidence of that. Gore received the popular majority vote, yet Bush took the presidency.
Further evidence of the lack of democracy in our presidential elections is the fact that hundreds of millions of dollars is needed to compete. Tens of millions are necessary to run in primaries. In 2008, Obama rejected money from public matching funds, because that includes limits on what candidates can spend. So, without those limits he could spend over $740,000,000 to win his election. Small donors are disregarded by his administration, while contributors of massive amounts determine policy in all branches of government.
Progressives are impotent in the policy making process precisely because we cannot out-contribute corporations in the campaign financing process. For this reason, the US election process is Public Enemy Number One from the Progressive point of view.
Our election power is weak because the money-dependent structure of the US election system favors the superrich, not the people. Election power is the key to success on all Progressive issues, like health care, peace, environment, education, employment, immigration, prisons, and others. But until the election system is re-structured, we will be doomed to frustration.
Fortunately, electronic technology, particularly the Internet, can give our side new leverage.
Internet voting presents a Great Opportunity for Progressives to have a fair chance at gaining significant political power.
Don't be fooled by the Great Security Scare, which is not based on science. The security technology refined by superrich banks and other corporations can be transferred to online voting systems. Ironically, we can use their technology to neutralize the power of Big Money in US elections.
Imagine yourself watching a series of debates between presidential candidates online, or on TV. Two debaters, in a real debate, have one hour to show their merit. Then you watch a second one hour debate between two more candidates.
At the end of that debate, the voters turn to their PC or cell phone and log on to their county's secure election server. After checking the registration, a ballot appears. The voter can then rate each debater from 0-9, not just cast one vote for one winner. Winning would depend on the ranking total.
In three evenings, the American people can sort through a dozen different candidates. Hearing all the ideas and arguments of those candidates would be far more of an education to the electorate than they now get from one Repub and one Dem.
Special interest advertising would have very little time or opportunity to interfere with the voter's decision making process. The voter will focus on the performance of the debaters, and base his or her ranking on that, rather than on some tricky ad that runs for a week on TV. The voter will decide long before advertising could work its manipulative schemes. Let the corporations spend all their shareholder's money. Internet voting, rightly organized, can neutralize all their pernicious efforts.
TV and online time for the debates can be free for the candidates. The people license the use of public air ways, and can require the time needed for debates from the broadcasting licensees. With that, the need for campaign contributions drops to nil.
Only 100 years ago the horse and carriage were the primary means of transportation in the US. The horseless carriage was an object of scorn and skepticism. Eventually, however, that new technology proved irresistible.
The same will happen with Internet voting. Hence, we can be sure that Internet voting is coming to the US!
The challenge for Progressives, then, is not how to stop the inevitable, but how to plan now to turn the emerging technology to our democratic advantage.
Remember what Einstein supposedly said about people who keep doing the same thing while expecting different results? So why do we keep trying to work within the money-dependent two-party system?
Let's break out of the crusty and corrupt old mold, and cast a new system from electronic technology.
Progressives have historically been the proponents of new ideas, aimed at enhancing the democratic quality of our political system. This is what we should keep trying to do!
Let us use this week's US Forum in Detroit, and the July Netroots Nation convention in Las Vegas, to figure out how to focus our energy and organizing skills on wiping out Public Enemy Number One: the election process of the two party duopoly, controlled by a few superrich corporations and individuals.
For more information on Internet voting as a Progressive reform of our election process, watch the interviews of me on Blip TV, at
http://blip.tv/file/3750735 - the special on Internet voting security at
http://www.blip.tv/file/3886970/ - and an update at http://blip.tv/etopia-news-now/william-j-kelleher-updates-the-internet-voting-story-5708665
Also see me speaking on You Tube
For an excellent short introduction as to how Internet voting would work in practice, see the Young Republican interview of me at
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2010/04/interview-with-dr-william-kelleher.html (It's only a five minute read. The first question is, "How would Internet voting have changed the 2008 election?")
Follow me on Twitter: wjkno1
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker,
CEO for The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund, a CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: Internetvoting@gmail.com
Blog: http://tinyurl.com/IV4All
Author of Internet Voting Now!
Kindle edition: http://tinyurl.com/IntV-Now
In paper: http://tinyurl.com/IVNow2011
Sunday, June 27, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Young Republicans Debate Internet Voting
OPENING CONTACT
Hey Young Republicans!
I would like you to know about the book I am working on. It will advocate the use of Internet voting in all US elections. Its entitled
How to Sideline the Superrich in All US Elections with Secure Internet Voting
The first draft is finished. Two chapters discuss the security issues. It can be done with all the security of an online purchase or electronic banking.
One chapter is entitled "The Original Intentions of the Framers for US Presidential Elections." Those guys detested parties. I think we Americans should get our country more in-line with their vision.
I also discuss the outrageous costs of running for president. Obama spent about $740,000,000 in 2008. Of course, this gives an unfair advantage to the superrich who can make big contributions.
Most importantly, I show how a system of presidential elections based on Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money, and make the president and vice-president directly dependent upon the people who elected them.
The superrich, and everyone else, will be free to spend as much money as they want to, but with the system I propose big spending cannot influence the voter's choice.
No agent/pub, yet. But all my chapter drafts are online for free reading or downloading at:
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
You and your readers are welcome to read any of this, and comment on it to me, or in your own writing.
Yours,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
FIRST REPLY
Hello good Sir,
I came across your comment on the Young Republicans blog, and you're suggesting that voting be through the Internet only? If you could further detail your plan, I'd be interested. Though, I'm sure I'll be opposed. Thanks, and have a good day.
YR
RESPONSE
Hi YR!
Thanks for your interest. Right now our election system is dominated by a small group of Big Money campaign contributors. They control both parties. This really cuts out the average citizen who can't compete with them for policy making.
With secure Internet voting, this situation can be changed.
Imagine you are watching a series of elimination debates online or on TV. After each debate you go to your state's voting website. After your registration is checked, you vote.
Money spent on campaign propaganda can't influence your choice. The only thing your vote will be based on is your own reasoning processes.
Read more (for free) at
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
DrWJK
SECOND REPLY
Dear DrWJK:
I still don't get it. Wouldn't this method allow for more fraud and those who are still rich, would still be launching advertisements, which have become a great fabric in our electoral system. I disagree with your ultimate premise: Money does not win elections, nor does it govern. If Obama's fundraising abilities won the election, than theoretically he should've won with over 55% of the vote...
Thoughts?
Imagine if there was never a "Willie Horton" advertisement during the 1988 or a "Swift Boat Veterans" advertisement during the 2004 Presidential elections, vital information that could've been known to the voters beforehand.
YR
SECOND RESPONSE
Hi YR!
Thanks for your interesting and probing questions. Let me know if I haven't answered them to your satisfaction.
Less Fraud, Not More
With encryption and biometric voter registration, in each state, voting fraud would be practically nil. There would be but one vote per person, and this would be more private than a banking transaction. Computers can record who voted, and how they voted, separately. Banking transactions must keep the name and the amounts together.
Check out my two chapters on security. “The Great Security Scare,” and “The Reasonable Person …” At: http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
How Money Picks Winners
Don’t be fooled by the truism that “money does not always win elections.” Sure, 1 out of 10 times the biggest spender does not prevail. But 9 out of 10 times he does. The person with ability, who doesn’t have rich connections or his own dough, gets left out of the game. Then we all lose.
Far more importantly, big money selects who will be in the race. Obama beat Clinton because the big contributors started to favor him over her. Indeed, her campaign ended with debts over $10 M. The rich settled that issue months before the average citizen had any say in who would be president. With Internet voting, properly organized, only the voters will select who will be in the race. Candidates will be eliminated by a series of debates, each decided by online voting. Spending will be allowed, but it simply will not be relevant.
More 1st Amendment Freedom with Internet Voting
Advertising is one effective way to reach large numbers of people with a political message. The ads you mention show that. With Internet voting, such advertising would continue. Indeed, current FEC regulations restricting the ways money can be spent would be unnecessary. The Supreme Court was right in Citizens United, restrictions on political speech violate the 1st Amendment.
None of those laws would be needed to protect the integrity of the election process with Internet voting. Reason: all candidates would be directly dependent upon the voter, and money would simply not give any significant advantages. There would be no political debts.
As I show in one of my chapters, the Framers of the Constitution originally intended that voting for the president be conducted in a solemn manner, conducive to rational deliberation. They hated factions, because factions manipilated unreasoning emotion. They saw the use of reason as best for making policy in the national interest. Internet voting would restore that original intention in the US.
Bill Kelleher
THIRD REPLY
Hello again,
The accusations of voting fraud have increased since "voting machines" have been introduced, in some areas; old paper ballots have been reintroduced. As for "secure", I don't even want to ponder hackings, "dead people" voting or the fact some, very few, Americans could be denied a voting right because they cannot access a computer.
How would "money" not influence elections via Internet voting? Advertisements would still be involved, individuals would still be badgered from both sides, and the pressure would still be on about 10% of the Nation to make a decision (I'd say 45% of Americans are down the line Republicans and another 45% are down the line Democrats). It's true that money is involved in elections, but besides from that - money does not choose who wins.
Candidates are dependent on the voters as the system is: For example the 1994 and 2006 congressional elections, scandal driven opposition, etc. etc.
YR
THIRD RESPONSE
My point by point replies:
TK: The accusations of voting fraud have increased since "voting machines" have been introduced …
DrWJK: Yes, since the 2004 presidential election there has been a lot of attention given to the suspicions and accusations about the integrity of DREs (direct recording electronic voting machines). But I see two major problems with your statement.
First, lets not confuse apples and oranges. Internet voting is an entirely different process than going to a polling place and voting on a DRE.
Secondly, accusations and proof are also two different matters. For a critique of the unprofessional journalism that spreads “the great security scare,” see Farhad Manjoo’s essay at Salon.com. He writes, “In his new book, Mark Crispin Miller tries to prove that Republicans rigged the 2004 election, but his evidence is thinner than a butterfly ballot.”
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/11/14/miller/index.html
(Full title of the book: Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them).)
All the fears and suspicions have been scrutinized in the courts, where bombast is quickly crushed. Most recently, and most comprehensively, a New Jersey court took it all on in a five year long case. Everything you can imagine, from a conspiracy of vendors to the six types of seals used to secure each machine, was examined by a slew of experts. One of the experts, a computer science professor, has a video on You Tube, “demonstrating” how he could hack a DRE in less than seven minutes. Its next to the Barnie Simpson video showing how his vote got flipped from Kerry to Bush.
Some people may believe that if you can see it done on You Tube, it must be true. But not the judge in this New Jersey case. After looking at every angle, she concluded that the New Jersey DREs are trustworthy.
See the opinion at http://tinyurl.com/NJEVoteOK
===
YR: in some areas; old paper ballots have been reintroduced.
DrWJK: The key word there is “some.” Currently, in the US, over 90% of voters vote on electronic devices. Around 60% vote on machines that produce a paper to be read by a scantron machine, or directly mark a scrantron paper ballot. Just over 30% vote on paperless DREs, including all of New Jersey. Out of several thousand voting jurisdictions in the US, only a tiny number use paper ballots that are then counted by hand, and these are rural districts.
Electronic voting is here to stay. And Internet voting is coming to the USA.
===
YR: As for "secure", I don't even want to ponder hackings…
DrWJK: Hacking is one of the great security scare myths that I write about in two chapters of my book. The NJ court looked at every form of hacking that the anti-e-voting side could come up with, including insider hacking and remote hacking. It was all dismissed as science fiction. As long as appropriate security protocols are followed, the chances of a hacker influencing an election create an acceptable risk for any reasonable person. Only an extremist perfectionist would want to stop e-voting because of the tiny chance of a hacking.
===
YR: "dead people" voting…
DrWJK: This is a problem of secure registration. Once all voters are registered with biometric identification, dead people will not be able to vote. Each state has a Registrar’s office for voting records, a DMV, and vital statistics offices. The interface of these departments will keep all records up to date.
===
YR: or the fact some, very few, Americans could be denied a voting right because they cannot access a computer.
DrWJK: Internet voting can be conducted securely via PC or cell phone or in a kiosk (a station with a secure network computer). In the Michigan Democratic primary in 2004 volunteers took lap tops to house-bound folks, and churches and union halls had kiosks.
The problem of “the digital divide” was worrisome in the first couple of years of this century, but now every voter, even if technologically challenged, blind, deaf, bed-ridden, etc, can vote via the Internet.
BTW Republicans in Alaska had internet voting for their 2000 caucuses, and Arizona Dems that year, too. No hacking happened (ask Sarah).
===
YR: How would "money" not influence elections via Internet voting? Advertisements would still be involved, individuals would still be badgered from both sides, and the pressure would still be on about 10% of the Nation to make a decision ...
DrWJK: In every voter’s life there comes the irreversible Moment of Decision; that is, the instant when the vote is actually cast. Today, ads can badger voters over the car radio all the way up to the polling place parking lot. Then, the last ad ringing in a voter’s head could be the decisive cause of his or her vote. In this sense, ads can control the voter’s reasoning process. But with properly organized Internet voting, the last thing the voter sees is the debate online or on TV. The voter then goes to the state’s online official web site to vote. No ads can intervene in these moments, so the voter’s decision is based purely on his or her own reasoning processes – just as the Founders originally intended.
===
YR: (I'd say 45% of Americans are down the line Republicans and another 45% are down the line Democrats).
DrWJK: Among political scientists, the mistake in this statement is called “the reification of categories.” That is, individual humans are treated as if party labels were an actual part of their biology. In fact, the media herds individuals into corrals by giving them loaded questions. Public opinion then appears to be divided in three ways (you forgot about “independents,” roughly 1/3).
Internet voting would take control of the US election process away from the two-party system puppets of the superrich, and empower all Americans to vote as equals. The result will be a multiplicity of opinion groupings, instead of the two parties and one throwaway category.
===
YR: It's true that money is involved in elections, but besides that - money does not choose who wins. Candidates are dependent on the voters as the system is …
DrWJK: Re-read what I said about candidate “selection.” Two years before the presidential election vote, well over 500 people in the US begin to consider running for president. The first thing they do is check their list of potential donors. Nearly all of them can raise the $5000 required by the FEC to make them eligible to register their intent to become a candidate. Around 500 registered for the 2008 election. Only about three dozen of these dreamers will raise enough dough to attract any media attention. These are the people with at least some rich connections. By the beginning of the primary season, less than a dozen in each party will have any chance at all. By the end of the second round of voting, usually Super Tuesday, each party will have one, two, or three hopefuls left. The superrich do the picking by granting or denying contributions. This isn’t a “voter’s choice,” because by the end of March, in the presidential election year, only a few thousand Americans have actually voted, while nearly two million are eligible to vote. That is oligarchy, not democracy.
Take a little time to read my chapter drafts, and lets talk about that.
Yours,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
************************
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
Hey Young Republicans!
I would like you to know about the book I am working on. It will advocate the use of Internet voting in all US elections. Its entitled
How to Sideline the Superrich in All US Elections with Secure Internet Voting
The first draft is finished. Two chapters discuss the security issues. It can be done with all the security of an online purchase or electronic banking.
One chapter is entitled "The Original Intentions of the Framers for US Presidential Elections." Those guys detested parties. I think we Americans should get our country more in-line with their vision.
I also discuss the outrageous costs of running for president. Obama spent about $740,000,000 in 2008. Of course, this gives an unfair advantage to the superrich who can make big contributions.
Most importantly, I show how a system of presidential elections based on Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money, and make the president and vice-president directly dependent upon the people who elected them.
The superrich, and everyone else, will be free to spend as much money as they want to, but with the system I propose big spending cannot influence the voter's choice.
No agent/pub, yet. But all my chapter drafts are online for free reading or downloading at:
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
You and your readers are welcome to read any of this, and comment on it to me, or in your own writing.
Yours,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
FIRST REPLY
Hello good Sir,
I came across your comment on the Young Republicans blog, and you're suggesting that voting be through the Internet only? If you could further detail your plan, I'd be interested. Though, I'm sure I'll be opposed. Thanks, and have a good day.
YR
RESPONSE
Hi YR!
Thanks for your interest. Right now our election system is dominated by a small group of Big Money campaign contributors. They control both parties. This really cuts out the average citizen who can't compete with them for policy making.
With secure Internet voting, this situation can be changed.
Imagine you are watching a series of elimination debates online or on TV. After each debate you go to your state's voting website. After your registration is checked, you vote.
Money spent on campaign propaganda can't influence your choice. The only thing your vote will be based on is your own reasoning processes.
Read more (for free) at
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
DrWJK
SECOND REPLY
Dear DrWJK:
I still don't get it. Wouldn't this method allow for more fraud and those who are still rich, would still be launching advertisements, which have become a great fabric in our electoral system. I disagree with your ultimate premise: Money does not win elections, nor does it govern. If Obama's fundraising abilities won the election, than theoretically he should've won with over 55% of the vote...
Thoughts?
Imagine if there was never a "Willie Horton" advertisement during the 1988 or a "Swift Boat Veterans" advertisement during the 2004 Presidential elections, vital information that could've been known to the voters beforehand.
YR
SECOND RESPONSE
Hi YR!
Thanks for your interesting and probing questions. Let me know if I haven't answered them to your satisfaction.
Less Fraud, Not More
With encryption and biometric voter registration, in each state, voting fraud would be practically nil. There would be but one vote per person, and this would be more private than a banking transaction. Computers can record who voted, and how they voted, separately. Banking transactions must keep the name and the amounts together.
Check out my two chapters on security. “The Great Security Scare,” and “The Reasonable Person …” At: http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
How Money Picks Winners
Don’t be fooled by the truism that “money does not always win elections.” Sure, 1 out of 10 times the biggest spender does not prevail. But 9 out of 10 times he does. The person with ability, who doesn’t have rich connections or his own dough, gets left out of the game. Then we all lose.
Far more importantly, big money selects who will be in the race. Obama beat Clinton because the big contributors started to favor him over her. Indeed, her campaign ended with debts over $10 M. The rich settled that issue months before the average citizen had any say in who would be president. With Internet voting, properly organized, only the voters will select who will be in the race. Candidates will be eliminated by a series of debates, each decided by online voting. Spending will be allowed, but it simply will not be relevant.
More 1st Amendment Freedom with Internet Voting
Advertising is one effective way to reach large numbers of people with a political message. The ads you mention show that. With Internet voting, such advertising would continue. Indeed, current FEC regulations restricting the ways money can be spent would be unnecessary. The Supreme Court was right in Citizens United, restrictions on political speech violate the 1st Amendment.
None of those laws would be needed to protect the integrity of the election process with Internet voting. Reason: all candidates would be directly dependent upon the voter, and money would simply not give any significant advantages. There would be no political debts.
As I show in one of my chapters, the Framers of the Constitution originally intended that voting for the president be conducted in a solemn manner, conducive to rational deliberation. They hated factions, because factions manipilated unreasoning emotion. They saw the use of reason as best for making policy in the national interest. Internet voting would restore that original intention in the US.
Bill Kelleher
THIRD REPLY
Hello again,
The accusations of voting fraud have increased since "voting machines" have been introduced, in some areas; old paper ballots have been reintroduced. As for "secure", I don't even want to ponder hackings, "dead people" voting or the fact some, very few, Americans could be denied a voting right because they cannot access a computer.
How would "money" not influence elections via Internet voting? Advertisements would still be involved, individuals would still be badgered from both sides, and the pressure would still be on about 10% of the Nation to make a decision (I'd say 45% of Americans are down the line Republicans and another 45% are down the line Democrats). It's true that money is involved in elections, but besides from that - money does not choose who wins.
Candidates are dependent on the voters as the system is: For example the 1994 and 2006 congressional elections, scandal driven opposition, etc. etc.
YR
THIRD RESPONSE
My point by point replies:
TK: The accusations of voting fraud have increased since "voting machines" have been introduced …
DrWJK: Yes, since the 2004 presidential election there has been a lot of attention given to the suspicions and accusations about the integrity of DREs (direct recording electronic voting machines). But I see two major problems with your statement.
First, lets not confuse apples and oranges. Internet voting is an entirely different process than going to a polling place and voting on a DRE.
Secondly, accusations and proof are also two different matters. For a critique of the unprofessional journalism that spreads “the great security scare,” see Farhad Manjoo’s essay at Salon.com. He writes, “In his new book, Mark Crispin Miller tries to prove that Republicans rigged the 2004 election, but his evidence is thinner than a butterfly ballot.”
http://www.salon.com/books/review/2005/11/14/miller/index.html
(Full title of the book: Fooled Again: How the Right Stole the 2004 Election and Why They'll Steal the Next One Too (Unless We Stop Them).)
All the fears and suspicions have been scrutinized in the courts, where bombast is quickly crushed. Most recently, and most comprehensively, a New Jersey court took it all on in a five year long case. Everything you can imagine, from a conspiracy of vendors to the six types of seals used to secure each machine, was examined by a slew of experts. One of the experts, a computer science professor, has a video on You Tube, “demonstrating” how he could hack a DRE in less than seven minutes. Its next to the Barnie Simpson video showing how his vote got flipped from Kerry to Bush.
Some people may believe that if you can see it done on You Tube, it must be true. But not the judge in this New Jersey case. After looking at every angle, she concluded that the New Jersey DREs are trustworthy.
See the opinion at http://tinyurl.com/NJEVoteOK
===
YR: in some areas; old paper ballots have been reintroduced.
DrWJK: The key word there is “some.” Currently, in the US, over 90% of voters vote on electronic devices. Around 60% vote on machines that produce a paper to be read by a scantron machine, or directly mark a scrantron paper ballot. Just over 30% vote on paperless DREs, including all of New Jersey. Out of several thousand voting jurisdictions in the US, only a tiny number use paper ballots that are then counted by hand, and these are rural districts.
Electronic voting is here to stay. And Internet voting is coming to the USA.
===
YR: As for "secure", I don't even want to ponder hackings…
DrWJK: Hacking is one of the great security scare myths that I write about in two chapters of my book. The NJ court looked at every form of hacking that the anti-e-voting side could come up with, including insider hacking and remote hacking. It was all dismissed as science fiction. As long as appropriate security protocols are followed, the chances of a hacker influencing an election create an acceptable risk for any reasonable person. Only an extremist perfectionist would want to stop e-voting because of the tiny chance of a hacking.
===
YR: "dead people" voting…
DrWJK: This is a problem of secure registration. Once all voters are registered with biometric identification, dead people will not be able to vote. Each state has a Registrar’s office for voting records, a DMV, and vital statistics offices. The interface of these departments will keep all records up to date.
===
YR: or the fact some, very few, Americans could be denied a voting right because they cannot access a computer.
DrWJK: Internet voting can be conducted securely via PC or cell phone or in a kiosk (a station with a secure network computer). In the Michigan Democratic primary in 2004 volunteers took lap tops to house-bound folks, and churches and union halls had kiosks.
The problem of “the digital divide” was worrisome in the first couple of years of this century, but now every voter, even if technologically challenged, blind, deaf, bed-ridden, etc, can vote via the Internet.
BTW Republicans in Alaska had internet voting for their 2000 caucuses, and Arizona Dems that year, too. No hacking happened (ask Sarah).
===
YR: How would "money" not influence elections via Internet voting? Advertisements would still be involved, individuals would still be badgered from both sides, and the pressure would still be on about 10% of the Nation to make a decision ...
DrWJK: In every voter’s life there comes the irreversible Moment of Decision; that is, the instant when the vote is actually cast. Today, ads can badger voters over the car radio all the way up to the polling place parking lot. Then, the last ad ringing in a voter’s head could be the decisive cause of his or her vote. In this sense, ads can control the voter’s reasoning process. But with properly organized Internet voting, the last thing the voter sees is the debate online or on TV. The voter then goes to the state’s online official web site to vote. No ads can intervene in these moments, so the voter’s decision is based purely on his or her own reasoning processes – just as the Founders originally intended.
===
YR: (I'd say 45% of Americans are down the line Republicans and another 45% are down the line Democrats).
DrWJK: Among political scientists, the mistake in this statement is called “the reification of categories.” That is, individual humans are treated as if party labels were an actual part of their biology. In fact, the media herds individuals into corrals by giving them loaded questions. Public opinion then appears to be divided in three ways (you forgot about “independents,” roughly 1/3).
Internet voting would take control of the US election process away from the two-party system puppets of the superrich, and empower all Americans to vote as equals. The result will be a multiplicity of opinion groupings, instead of the two parties and one throwaway category.
===
YR: It's true that money is involved in elections, but besides that - money does not choose who wins. Candidates are dependent on the voters as the system is …
DrWJK: Re-read what I said about candidate “selection.” Two years before the presidential election vote, well over 500 people in the US begin to consider running for president. The first thing they do is check their list of potential donors. Nearly all of them can raise the $5000 required by the FEC to make them eligible to register their intent to become a candidate. Around 500 registered for the 2008 election. Only about three dozen of these dreamers will raise enough dough to attract any media attention. These are the people with at least some rich connections. By the beginning of the primary season, less than a dozen in each party will have any chance at all. By the end of the second round of voting, usually Super Tuesday, each party will have one, two, or three hopefuls left. The superrich do the picking by granting or denying contributions. This isn’t a “voter’s choice,” because by the end of March, in the presidential election year, only a few thousand Americans have actually voted, while nearly two million are eligible to vote. That is oligarchy, not democracy.
Take a little time to read my chapter drafts, and lets talk about that.
Yours,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
************************
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
Monday, April 12, 2010
INTERNET VOTING
INTERNET VOTING
The first draft of the book I am working on is finished! It will advocate the use of Internet voting in all US elections. Its entitled
How to Sideline the Superrich in All US Elections with Secure Internet Voting
Two chapters discuss the security issues. It can be done with all the security of an online purchase or electronic banking.
One chapter is entitled "The Original Intentions of the Framers for US Presidential Elections."
I also discuss the outrageous costs of running for president. Obama spent about $740,000,000 in 2008. Of course, this gives an unfair advantage to the superrich who can make big contributions.
Most importantly, I show how a system of presidential elections based on Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money, and make the president and vice-president directly dependent upon the people who elected them. Here is a cure for both Citizens United, and a government that ignores the people!
No agent/pub, yet. But all my chapter drafts are online for free reading or downloading at:
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
Everyone is welcome to read any of this, and comment on it to me, or in your own writing.
Yours,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
************************
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
The first draft of the book I am working on is finished! It will advocate the use of Internet voting in all US elections. Its entitled
How to Sideline the Superrich in All US Elections with Secure Internet Voting
Two chapters discuss the security issues. It can be done with all the security of an online purchase or electronic banking.
One chapter is entitled "The Original Intentions of the Framers for US Presidential Elections."
I also discuss the outrageous costs of running for president. Obama spent about $740,000,000 in 2008. Of course, this gives an unfair advantage to the superrich who can make big contributions.
Most importantly, I show how a system of presidential elections based on Internet voting can neutralize the power of Big Money, and make the president and vice-president directly dependent upon the people who elected them. Here is a cure for both Citizens United, and a government that ignores the people!
No agent/pub, yet. But all my chapter drafts are online for free reading or downloading at:
http://ssrn.com/author=1053589
Everyone is welcome to read any of this, and comment on it to me, or in your own writing.
Yours,
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
************************
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
Political Scientist, author, speaker, CEO for
The Internet Voting Research and Education Fund
A CA Nonprofit Foundation
Email: InternetVoting@gmail.com
Friday, August 1, 2008
Towards What? A Review of Netroots Rising
Netroots Rising: How a Citizen Army of Bloggers and Online Activists Is Changing American Politics By Lowell Feld and Nate Wilcox Praeger Publishers Westport, CT: 2008 230 Pages, $39.95
Introduction.
Political Science has a concept known as “empowerment theory.” The idea is that, among other things, giving people an opportunity to participate meaningfully in campaigns is one way of showing respect for their skill, energy, judgment, and intelligence. As formerly frustrated political outsiders begin to perceive such an opportunity for empowerment, many of them will seize that opportunity. As a result of their action, they will feel more efficacious, their lives will seem more meaningful to them, and their belief in democracy will deepen.
This book is a confirmation of empowerment theory. It is a true story of how outsiders to an established campaign process found a new way to become effective participants in the system. As the authors suggest, this may be the beginning of a real revolution.
Who are the netroots? They include men and women, paid website designers and managers, bloggers (paid and unpaid), and especially the readers of these information sources. It is these readers who participate early in campaigns by using the net to seek and to spread information, and to contribute funds to favored candidates, whether in or out of their own voting jurisdictions. By no means monolithic in their opinions, the netroots does lean liberal.
To fully appreciate the achievement of the netroots, let us first consider the historical context out of which the netroots have grown. (I include this section because it is not in the book.)
The Political Context.
The modern two-party system took shape in the mid-1800s. General Andrew Jackson organized the Democratic Party in 1825. He won his first of two elections to the presidency in 1828. Using Abe Lincoln as their candidate, and Jackson’s organizing strategies, the Republican Party came to power in 1860. Soon thereafter, the bosses of the two parties took charge of how campaigns would be conducted. Early in the 20th Century, progressives tried to wrest power from the party bosses by instituting primaries in various states. This ended the reign of the bosses, but not of the rich. They quickly learned to use the primaries to select a favorable presidential candidate by granting or withholding funds.
Most presidents since the end of the 19th Century have been recruited and supported by wealthy insiders. Their campaigns are financed by the massive contributions of corporations and rich individuals. A cadre of Washington lawyers and lobbyists organize fund-raisers, and “bundle” checks to skirt FEC laws limiting campaign contribution amounts. The dough is channeled to clever ad makers and media manipulators, who know just how to fool the voting public into thinking this candidate is what they really want. Professional public relations experts craft a policy platform designed to mean what polls show the voters want to hear. Paid speech writers adapt the platform to candidate speeches. As we all know, it’s like selling soap.
Seasoned professionals run the campaign in the traditional top-down manner. The elected officials in both parties have a home base organization of volunteers. This army of reservists consists of the beneficiaries of earmarks and pork, which steer the public’s tax dollars into businesses and services in the districts and states. Some of that former tax money is returned to the elected officials in the form of campaign contributions “from the people.” For each election cycle, this army of reservists is called out to recruit their friends and acquaintances to campaign for the candidate that the wealthy elites have chosen for them to back. Party conventions have become festivals to reward the reservists for their efforts. Conventions no longer choose candidates – they have already been chosen in “the wealth primary.”
Thus, for well over 100 years the US has had a political system with a relatively closed campaign and election process run by the rich. Until, that is, 2002 when Howard Dean began his presidential bid.
The Deaniacs.
This book is rich in detail about the Dean movement, and other campaigns. However, the authors do not mention a particularly important move made by the Dean campaign, which may be another of its firsts. Dean asked his supporters to vote online to help decide whether his campaign should apply for millions of dollars in federal matching funds during the primary campaign. If the campaign did this, it would also have to abide by federal limitations on how much it could spend. In November of 2003 the majority voted to stay out of the system, and just self-finance. And so that is what Dean did. This was authentic democratic empowerment.
As the authors show, the Dean campaign listened to its supporters in several ways. It took suggestions made in comments on its blog and in emails to its website. It joined with Meetup.com, and encouraged its supports to meet together, unsupervised by the campaign, and brainstorm over ways to support the candidate on their own initiative.
People who felt frustrated by a perceived lack of empowerment saw an opportunity to exercise some significant power by using the Internet. Some started their own pro-Dean blogs. Daily Kos took up the Dean cause early in 2003. Dozens of Yahoo Groups came together, many self-organized by states.
As the narrative suggests, two of the major moving factors in this period were anger and frustration. The anger was over the Bush theft of the presidency in 2000, and even more so at the unprecedented preemptive invasion of Iraq in response to 9/11, which was justified by lies and deception.
The frustration came from believing in the ideal of democracy, while in reality being locked out of the political system, which was dominated by the military/industrial complex, as well as other rich corporations and individuals.
No one proclaimed “let’s use the Internet to storm the barricades!” It just happened spontaneously. As the book shows, it happened at the same time in the Dean campaign, and in the Clark campaign. Never mind that both campaigns ultimately failed. Lessons were learned, people gained new and valuable experience, and precedents were set for a truly new politics.
Pros v. Joes.
Needless to say, the Old Guard is uncomfortable with this Internet Insurgency. The long practiced habit of putting professionals in charge of a tightly knit campaign organization, after Jackson’s military style, is a hard to shake addiction. The Dean campaign was extraordinary, in part, because it thought outside the box, and actually encouraged free-spirited Deaniacs to do their own thing.
Thus, one of the recurring themes in the book is the conflict between, what I call, “the pros and the joes.” At one point, for one of the authors, it nearly came to blows! We see numerous examples of old style control freaks trying to shape the message put out by independent-minded bloggers. It just can’t be done.
That conflict haunted the “Webb for Senate” campaign in Virginia. Here is the story of a hard fought campaign against a seemingly invulnerable incumbent. The pros failed to appreciate the power of the joes and their freewheeling blogs. Remember the word “macaca”? All the details are in the book. The netroots played a big role in helping to draft Webb when he was unsure of his chances, at getting out the Webb message, and at exposing the racism of the incumbent. They deserve credit for their significant share in bringing about Webb’s victory.
Other effective uses of the net in politics will be found in a variety of well-told vignettes. These include the story of Tim Kaine’s victorious campaign for governor of Virginia. The netroots also played a big part in bringing down “the hammer,” former House majority leader Republican Tom Delay. These authors speak from experience, because they were in on the action.
From the democratic point of view, a good campaign is an education to the electorate. Certainly the Internet is full of potential for educating. While no Lincoln/Douglas debates yet, the book does show some instances of positive e-education for the voters about issues. As an example of their candor, the authors also record some instances of embarrassingly stupid mud-slinging and balderdash put out on the net.
Net Neutrality.
Another theme of the book is that the Internet is not neutral; it has a progressive bias. At first you might think that the Internet is just a tool, to be used as well by conservatives as progressives. But that’s not the way it works out in practice. Because this technology is an instrument for changing, not preserving, the present campaign and election process, it is biased in favor of progressives. Because it connects people equally, it elevates the value of all users. All users are equally empowered, and limited only by their own personal skills, drive, and wit. That is why progressives, like the anti-war pro-reform Deaniacs, were the first to put the Internet into effective political use. Progressive minded people are more energized by the net’s possibilities than are conservative minded folks.
The authors see clearly the stronger appeal to progressives. Although not in the book, here are some statistics that tend to validate their vision.
According to Pew surveys taken in 2000, 20% of respondents reported using the Internet to obtain political news. But in early 2008, 74% of Obama supporters reported using the Internet to get political information – more than three times the number eight years prior. In the same 2008 survey, 57% of Clinton supporters reported using the net for news, and 56% of McCain supporters. Clearly, supporters of the candidate for change are way ahead of the competition when it comes to net savvy.
Only 3% reported political donating online in all of 2006. But by early 2008, the number had nearly tripled to 8%; and, 17% of Obama supporters had reported donating online in this survey, taken during the time when Clinton was still in the primary race.
36% of Democrats report having a social network profile. Its only 21% for Republicans and 28% for Independents. 66% of those under 30 have a social network profile. 35% of respondents say they have watched political videos online. That is three times the number for 2004.
These numbers are a measure of momentum. Net use, and sophistication, is growing. Our country is far from having reached its full potential for Internet-based politics. If 80% of those with some college own a computer, as some surveys suggest, and only 20% with a high school diploma own a computer, that means there is room for 20% growth in the first group, and 80% growth in the second group. If a little more than half the computer owners in the US go online for political news, that means that almost half of them have room to grow in their sophistication.
The writers of Netroots Rising are well aware that Internet technology also tilts progressive because it confronts one of the premises of consumer culture. That is, passivity. Corporations require consumers who will respond to advertising, and play the consumer game without questioning it. Thus, most Americans get their political information from watching TV. Listening to the radio, and reading newspapers and magazines, are a distant second. But Internet technology requires its users to ask questions, and to actively seek answers. To use a search engine, for example, someone must first formulate in their mind what it is they want to know about. Then they conduct a search. Active Internet users are a different kind of person than the average TV viewer who simply turns on “the evening news.” Also, passive media make no provision for participation. One may shout at a talking head on the Boob Tube, or at a voice coming out of the radio, but those acts are inconsequential. Writing a letter to the local newspaper isn’t much more effective. But commenting on a blog can engage others in a discussion, and the dialogue can not only inform, but change minds. The netroots, then, is progressive in that it is acting out of line with the corporate-culture mainstream. As the book suggests, the netroots are the advance guard of changes yet to come.
Concluding Questions.
A two-party, top-down system that dominated much of the 19th Century, and all of the 20th Century, cannot be uprooted all at once – not even in a decade. But this book points in the direction for politics that the new Internet-related technology indicates.
Of course, no revolution can succeed without struggle. Struggle, as Marx learned from Hegel, is the birthing process of history. For some joes, it might actually come to blows. Also, there will be set-backs. And success is never guaranteed.
While the authors sense the revolutionary potential of the netroots, they could have sketched in a little more vision in their last chapter. How, for example, can the netroots lead America towards a fuller realization of its potential for a more direct democracy?
Can the new net technology make the direct election of the president possible (that is, without the Electoral College, which contributed to Gore’s loss in 2000)? Can the Internet be used to create a virtual republic in each Congressional district, or each state?
What is the full potential of the Internet and its related electronic technology? Is the political potential of this technology maxed out by the speed of communication it allows, or by the efficiency of its computerized record keeping? Is it maxed out by the profitability of its fund-raising efforts? Is it maxed out by its ability to publicize and to popularize a progressive candidate, or to let everyone know about the faults of an incumbent or an opponent of a progressive? Is it maxed out in its role as gadfly to the mainstream media?
One might also ask the authors, “what is the netroots long-term strategy?” Do the netroots want to become merely accepted as equals in the money-dependent presently dominant system, or do they want to find a way to compel that system to break out of its current wealth-serving mold altogether, and use Internet technologies to create a new system, which greatly magnifies the degree of democracy we progressives now find so frustrating? Are the current uses of the net the final realization of its full potential for democratizing our politics?
One author has partly answered when he commented recently on a blog that this book is not the announcement of a triumph, but of a beginning. Read this important book and you will see just how a new chapter in American politics has begun to unfold.
In concluding, the authors recognize that Internet technology has a long way to go before it can rise to the level of influence of print and broadcast media. But, those may be a measure of its potential. For the Internet to realize its full potential, and surpass the passive absorption of political information, will require a new kind of American. That’s what real revolutions do; they change character.
I would only add that as people become more sophisticated with e-commerce, and other forms of Internet usage, they will become more prepared for increased participation in e-politics. Mistrust and reluctance are currently high about the prospects of online voting; yet, as we have seen, this too was done by Dean. But once the electorate is as comfortable with the prospects of e-politics as they now are with the use of e-commerce and e-banking they will be more receptive for a great leap forward.
Attention teachers. This book is not only excellent as current history, it is a fantastic stimulant for critical thinking. Almost every page makes a claim for a causal relationship between netroots action and some political success, such as fund-raising, drafting a candidate, or winning an election. Your students will have a ball refuting or defending these claims. The book is easy to read, and the authors provide material for both sides of the arguments.
I highly recommend this book.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
=========================
Dr. Kelleher is the author of Progressive Logic, and The New Election Game. His latest essay is “Internet Voting is Coming!” at:
http://www.webcitation.org/5ZbugIFU0
=========================
Introduction.
Political Science has a concept known as “empowerment theory.” The idea is that, among other things, giving people an opportunity to participate meaningfully in campaigns is one way of showing respect for their skill, energy, judgment, and intelligence. As formerly frustrated political outsiders begin to perceive such an opportunity for empowerment, many of them will seize that opportunity. As a result of their action, they will feel more efficacious, their lives will seem more meaningful to them, and their belief in democracy will deepen.
This book is a confirmation of empowerment theory. It is a true story of how outsiders to an established campaign process found a new way to become effective participants in the system. As the authors suggest, this may be the beginning of a real revolution.
Who are the netroots? They include men and women, paid website designers and managers, bloggers (paid and unpaid), and especially the readers of these information sources. It is these readers who participate early in campaigns by using the net to seek and to spread information, and to contribute funds to favored candidates, whether in or out of their own voting jurisdictions. By no means monolithic in their opinions, the netroots does lean liberal.
To fully appreciate the achievement of the netroots, let us first consider the historical context out of which the netroots have grown. (I include this section because it is not in the book.)
The Political Context.
The modern two-party system took shape in the mid-1800s. General Andrew Jackson organized the Democratic Party in 1825. He won his first of two elections to the presidency in 1828. Using Abe Lincoln as their candidate, and Jackson’s organizing strategies, the Republican Party came to power in 1860. Soon thereafter, the bosses of the two parties took charge of how campaigns would be conducted. Early in the 20th Century, progressives tried to wrest power from the party bosses by instituting primaries in various states. This ended the reign of the bosses, but not of the rich. They quickly learned to use the primaries to select a favorable presidential candidate by granting or withholding funds.
Most presidents since the end of the 19th Century have been recruited and supported by wealthy insiders. Their campaigns are financed by the massive contributions of corporations and rich individuals. A cadre of Washington lawyers and lobbyists organize fund-raisers, and “bundle” checks to skirt FEC laws limiting campaign contribution amounts. The dough is channeled to clever ad makers and media manipulators, who know just how to fool the voting public into thinking this candidate is what they really want. Professional public relations experts craft a policy platform designed to mean what polls show the voters want to hear. Paid speech writers adapt the platform to candidate speeches. As we all know, it’s like selling soap.
Seasoned professionals run the campaign in the traditional top-down manner. The elected officials in both parties have a home base organization of volunteers. This army of reservists consists of the beneficiaries of earmarks and pork, which steer the public’s tax dollars into businesses and services in the districts and states. Some of that former tax money is returned to the elected officials in the form of campaign contributions “from the people.” For each election cycle, this army of reservists is called out to recruit their friends and acquaintances to campaign for the candidate that the wealthy elites have chosen for them to back. Party conventions have become festivals to reward the reservists for their efforts. Conventions no longer choose candidates – they have already been chosen in “the wealth primary.”
Thus, for well over 100 years the US has had a political system with a relatively closed campaign and election process run by the rich. Until, that is, 2002 when Howard Dean began his presidential bid.
The Deaniacs.
This book is rich in detail about the Dean movement, and other campaigns. However, the authors do not mention a particularly important move made by the Dean campaign, which may be another of its firsts. Dean asked his supporters to vote online to help decide whether his campaign should apply for millions of dollars in federal matching funds during the primary campaign. If the campaign did this, it would also have to abide by federal limitations on how much it could spend. In November of 2003 the majority voted to stay out of the system, and just self-finance. And so that is what Dean did. This was authentic democratic empowerment.
As the authors show, the Dean campaign listened to its supporters in several ways. It took suggestions made in comments on its blog and in emails to its website. It joined with Meetup.com, and encouraged its supports to meet together, unsupervised by the campaign, and brainstorm over ways to support the candidate on their own initiative.
People who felt frustrated by a perceived lack of empowerment saw an opportunity to exercise some significant power by using the Internet. Some started their own pro-Dean blogs. Daily Kos took up the Dean cause early in 2003. Dozens of Yahoo Groups came together, many self-organized by states.
As the narrative suggests, two of the major moving factors in this period were anger and frustration. The anger was over the Bush theft of the presidency in 2000, and even more so at the unprecedented preemptive invasion of Iraq in response to 9/11, which was justified by lies and deception.
The frustration came from believing in the ideal of democracy, while in reality being locked out of the political system, which was dominated by the military/industrial complex, as well as other rich corporations and individuals.
No one proclaimed “let’s use the Internet to storm the barricades!” It just happened spontaneously. As the book shows, it happened at the same time in the Dean campaign, and in the Clark campaign. Never mind that both campaigns ultimately failed. Lessons were learned, people gained new and valuable experience, and precedents were set for a truly new politics.
Pros v. Joes.
Needless to say, the Old Guard is uncomfortable with this Internet Insurgency. The long practiced habit of putting professionals in charge of a tightly knit campaign organization, after Jackson’s military style, is a hard to shake addiction. The Dean campaign was extraordinary, in part, because it thought outside the box, and actually encouraged free-spirited Deaniacs to do their own thing.
Thus, one of the recurring themes in the book is the conflict between, what I call, “the pros and the joes.” At one point, for one of the authors, it nearly came to blows! We see numerous examples of old style control freaks trying to shape the message put out by independent-minded bloggers. It just can’t be done.
That conflict haunted the “Webb for Senate” campaign in Virginia. Here is the story of a hard fought campaign against a seemingly invulnerable incumbent. The pros failed to appreciate the power of the joes and their freewheeling blogs. Remember the word “macaca”? All the details are in the book. The netroots played a big role in helping to draft Webb when he was unsure of his chances, at getting out the Webb message, and at exposing the racism of the incumbent. They deserve credit for their significant share in bringing about Webb’s victory.
Other effective uses of the net in politics will be found in a variety of well-told vignettes. These include the story of Tim Kaine’s victorious campaign for governor of Virginia. The netroots also played a big part in bringing down “the hammer,” former House majority leader Republican Tom Delay. These authors speak from experience, because they were in on the action.
From the democratic point of view, a good campaign is an education to the electorate. Certainly the Internet is full of potential for educating. While no Lincoln/Douglas debates yet, the book does show some instances of positive e-education for the voters about issues. As an example of their candor, the authors also record some instances of embarrassingly stupid mud-slinging and balderdash put out on the net.
Net Neutrality.
Another theme of the book is that the Internet is not neutral; it has a progressive bias. At first you might think that the Internet is just a tool, to be used as well by conservatives as progressives. But that’s not the way it works out in practice. Because this technology is an instrument for changing, not preserving, the present campaign and election process, it is biased in favor of progressives. Because it connects people equally, it elevates the value of all users. All users are equally empowered, and limited only by their own personal skills, drive, and wit. That is why progressives, like the anti-war pro-reform Deaniacs, were the first to put the Internet into effective political use. Progressive minded people are more energized by the net’s possibilities than are conservative minded folks.
The authors see clearly the stronger appeal to progressives. Although not in the book, here are some statistics that tend to validate their vision.
According to Pew surveys taken in 2000, 20% of respondents reported using the Internet to obtain political news. But in early 2008, 74% of Obama supporters reported using the Internet to get political information – more than three times the number eight years prior. In the same 2008 survey, 57% of Clinton supporters reported using the net for news, and 56% of McCain supporters. Clearly, supporters of the candidate for change are way ahead of the competition when it comes to net savvy.
Only 3% reported political donating online in all of 2006. But by early 2008, the number had nearly tripled to 8%; and, 17% of Obama supporters had reported donating online in this survey, taken during the time when Clinton was still in the primary race.
36% of Democrats report having a social network profile. Its only 21% for Republicans and 28% for Independents. 66% of those under 30 have a social network profile. 35% of respondents say they have watched political videos online. That is three times the number for 2004.
These numbers are a measure of momentum. Net use, and sophistication, is growing. Our country is far from having reached its full potential for Internet-based politics. If 80% of those with some college own a computer, as some surveys suggest, and only 20% with a high school diploma own a computer, that means there is room for 20% growth in the first group, and 80% growth in the second group. If a little more than half the computer owners in the US go online for political news, that means that almost half of them have room to grow in their sophistication.
The writers of Netroots Rising are well aware that Internet technology also tilts progressive because it confronts one of the premises of consumer culture. That is, passivity. Corporations require consumers who will respond to advertising, and play the consumer game without questioning it. Thus, most Americans get their political information from watching TV. Listening to the radio, and reading newspapers and magazines, are a distant second. But Internet technology requires its users to ask questions, and to actively seek answers. To use a search engine, for example, someone must first formulate in their mind what it is they want to know about. Then they conduct a search. Active Internet users are a different kind of person than the average TV viewer who simply turns on “the evening news.” Also, passive media make no provision for participation. One may shout at a talking head on the Boob Tube, or at a voice coming out of the radio, but those acts are inconsequential. Writing a letter to the local newspaper isn’t much more effective. But commenting on a blog can engage others in a discussion, and the dialogue can not only inform, but change minds. The netroots, then, is progressive in that it is acting out of line with the corporate-culture mainstream. As the book suggests, the netroots are the advance guard of changes yet to come.
Concluding Questions.
A two-party, top-down system that dominated much of the 19th Century, and all of the 20th Century, cannot be uprooted all at once – not even in a decade. But this book points in the direction for politics that the new Internet-related technology indicates.
Of course, no revolution can succeed without struggle. Struggle, as Marx learned from Hegel, is the birthing process of history. For some joes, it might actually come to blows. Also, there will be set-backs. And success is never guaranteed.
While the authors sense the revolutionary potential of the netroots, they could have sketched in a little more vision in their last chapter. How, for example, can the netroots lead America towards a fuller realization of its potential for a more direct democracy?
Can the new net technology make the direct election of the president possible (that is, without the Electoral College, which contributed to Gore’s loss in 2000)? Can the Internet be used to create a virtual republic in each Congressional district, or each state?
What is the full potential of the Internet and its related electronic technology? Is the political potential of this technology maxed out by the speed of communication it allows, or by the efficiency of its computerized record keeping? Is it maxed out by the profitability of its fund-raising efforts? Is it maxed out by its ability to publicize and to popularize a progressive candidate, or to let everyone know about the faults of an incumbent or an opponent of a progressive? Is it maxed out in its role as gadfly to the mainstream media?
One might also ask the authors, “what is the netroots long-term strategy?” Do the netroots want to become merely accepted as equals in the money-dependent presently dominant system, or do they want to find a way to compel that system to break out of its current wealth-serving mold altogether, and use Internet technologies to create a new system, which greatly magnifies the degree of democracy we progressives now find so frustrating? Are the current uses of the net the final realization of its full potential for democratizing our politics?
One author has partly answered when he commented recently on a blog that this book is not the announcement of a triumph, but of a beginning. Read this important book and you will see just how a new chapter in American politics has begun to unfold.
In concluding, the authors recognize that Internet technology has a long way to go before it can rise to the level of influence of print and broadcast media. But, those may be a measure of its potential. For the Internet to realize its full potential, and surpass the passive absorption of political information, will require a new kind of American. That’s what real revolutions do; they change character.
I would only add that as people become more sophisticated with e-commerce, and other forms of Internet usage, they will become more prepared for increased participation in e-politics. Mistrust and reluctance are currently high about the prospects of online voting; yet, as we have seen, this too was done by Dean. But once the electorate is as comfortable with the prospects of e-politics as they now are with the use of e-commerce and e-banking they will be more receptive for a great leap forward.
Attention teachers. This book is not only excellent as current history, it is a fantastic stimulant for critical thinking. Almost every page makes a claim for a causal relationship between netroots action and some political success, such as fund-raising, drafting a candidate, or winning an election. Your students will have a ball refuting or defending these claims. The book is easy to read, and the authors provide material for both sides of the arguments.
I highly recommend this book.
William J. Kelleher, Ph.D.
=========================
Dr. Kelleher is the author of Progressive Logic, and The New Election Game. His latest essay is “Internet Voting is Coming!” at:
http://www.webcitation.org/5ZbugIFU0
=========================
Sunday, February 24, 2008
World Wide Electronic Democracy Now!
Friends of Democracy!
Internet Voting can be as safe as a bank transfer of funds, or an on-line purchase. Both are done millions of times a day without loss. Hackers can't get in to these systems. Blockchain technology now makes online voting secure.
People all over the world can elect government officials conveniently through internet voting. Elections can be held without advantage to elites. This model for the United States can be adapted to any country.
Think of it, in the USA: No Electoral College, with the people directly electing the president and vice-president. All states equal partners. Full public funding, so no special interest advantages. In this process, even the Super Rich will have no special advantage. Open to all self-nominated persons, after passing a written exam -- The Presidential Literacy Test.
How is this possible? Go to,
Internet Voting can be as safe as a bank transfer of funds, or an on-line purchase. Both are done millions of times a day without loss. Hackers can't get in to these systems. Blockchain technology now makes online voting secure.
People all over the world can elect government officials conveniently through internet voting. Elections can be held without advantage to elites. This model for the United States can be adapted to any country.
Think of it, in the USA: No Electoral College, with the people directly electing the president and vice-president. All states equal partners. Full public funding, so no special interest advantages. In this process, even the Super Rich will have no special advantage. Open to all self-nominated persons, after passing a written exam -- The Presidential Literacy Test.
How is this possible? Go to,
Scroll down to #9,
How to Organize
the Direct Election of US Presidents in a Way Which Will Restore Reason and
Eliminate Costs to the Candidates, Based on Internet Voting (Free, safe download)
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)