Electronic Democracy - Comments
by Don Straus

[note: Don wrote a series of comments in response to material
in a discussion on "electronic democracy" which included Dave
Hughes (see his remarks in the October and November issues of
NETWEAVER) and others. Don was good enough to give us
permission to reprint them here.]

I have now read through all of the comments in DCMETA 121 and
153 on "Electronic Democracy." It is every bit as exciting as
you claimed and I am very grateful to you for [helping me to
get it] Now, as promised, here are some observations:

*-*-*-*-*-*-*

General: This is the best account of electronically assisted
participatory democracy that I have seen. I wonder how many
(if any) other examples there are. What a great service it
would be to identify all of the current on-going examples, and
to link them up so that they could exchange experiences and
brain storm improved strategies. If this were ever done, I
would sure like to be a participant/lurker.

Qubes: I have recently spoken with top officials of both Qube
and the New York Times (the Times now owns interactive-TV
capability in several communities in southern New Jersey). From
what they told me, I think that Dave Hughes' analysis of their
failure in participatory democracy is quite accurate. In
addition, both of my sources told me that they were also afraid
of pushing it further for fear of being accused of trying to
influence public policy through a medium that is now considered
elitist. For this reason, both corporations have decided not
to push political use, but rather to extend interactive-TV use
for commercial purposes. If it becomes generally accepted
there, then they may try to reenter the political field. I
conclude from this that the idea of participatory democracy can
and will only be promoted by individuals like Hughes, not by
the large commercial networks or other conventional media.

Anonymity: I was interested in the many comments on this
subject. It is indeed a complicated one. Our democratic
"culture" stresses the secret ballot. On the other hand,
Hughes and Lisa Kimball (among others) tell us from experience
that anonymity on-line seems to degenerate the quality of
discussion. As usual, Lisa strikes a constructive note when
she suggests that a variety of techniques should be tried
depending upon the circumstances and the purposes of the
discussion. "Real" names should probably be used for problem
solving, with perhaps a monitored and edited anonymous account
(to edit out irresponsible ad-hominem attacks) for those who
want to test new ideas without attribution. But there must
always be provisions for secret voting.

Lobbying and Collaborating: I was particularly interested in
the discussion introduced by Art Kleiner on lobbying,
representative government, and collaborative problem solving.
He viewed Hughes' activities as primarily adversarial
lobbying. My own impression is slightly different. It seemed
to me that Hughes genuinely tried to get different viewpoints
and to promote unbiased education. However, he is a
self-declared activist, and Kleiner raises an important issue.
Ideally, all viewpoints and all citizens should be committed to
collaborative procedures and behavior in a joint effort to
reach consensus, accommodation, and a decision based upon the
best available information. Yet, pragmatically, our democracy
is adversarial, reflecting accurately our culture. As we
continue to experiment, again drawing upon Lisa's wisdom, we
need to recognize the various potential uses of electronic
conferencing; among them being:

* Lobbying, single-issue activism: Groups with a special
point of view and interests will always join together to
increase their strength through numbers, to refine arguments,
and to promote as best they can their favored solutions.

* Representative groups: These will pursue the adversarial
methods that dominate our society, but will follow conventional
order and due process in their debates.

* Collaborative problem solving groups: This relatively new
concept for reaching decisions are composed of individuals who
assemble to solve a defined and recognized problem, seeking
first to understand the issues before "leaping to conclusions".
The objective is to invent better solutions, not to push an
already reached conclusion.

Each of the above conference configurations has its own
"validity". The important thing, it seems to me, is to have
them clearly labelled, and not to permit, for example, a
lobbying group to masquerade as a collaborative one. Again,
ideally, each new issue requiring a democratic decision should
at least begin with the collaborative configuration. Then, as
the issues become better understood, different groups might
coalesce and appoint representatives to defend their interests.

Finally, as the time for a vote/decision approaches, open
lobbying will surely be demanded and practiced. But if such
adversarial behavior and processes follow a collaborative
attempt to understand, then the quality of the debate should be
of "higher quality", and so should the ultimate decision. It
seems to me that some such goals might be adopted by those of
us seeking to develop this medium. Each of the above different
kinds of electronic conferencing would require different
procedures, different styles of moderating, and different rules
for admitting participants. Many other kinds of conferencing
will surely be developed with further experience and
experimentation.

How many and who: Should electronic conferencing be for the
decision- makers alone, for all who are willing to participate,
or for the whole electorate? These are fundamental
questions. Dave Hughes' experiments began with numbers with
which we are all familiar --- usually well under 50. But as
his "constituency" increased, the numbers grew rapidly and, by
the end, they reached over 300 and are still growing. How many
can this medium accommodate and still retain a high quality of
participation? What procedures can we invent to accommodate
the ultimate thousands, even millions, that must be the goal of
genuine participatory democracy?

I have no quick answers, but I suggest that they surely must be
found in the creative use of Hughes' notion of "multi-modes" -
a mixture of many different media and procedures. Eventually,
a combination of TV and computer conferencing must be
introduced.

Apathy and participation: Throughout the comments in DCMETA
121, the problem of citizen apathy was raised. Hughes' energy
and ingenuity first galvanized a small number of individuals in
a small community, but this kind of leadership is surely much
more difficult to pursue in larger cities, and certainly
nationally.

Elsewhere I have speculated on the use of a "drafted
electorate", calling upon the precedence of the more familiar
procedure of drafting citizens for jury duty. If you wish, and
still have patience after reading all of this, I could download
an article of several pages which I have titled A DEMOCRATIC
FANTASY. In it I describe a specific decision reached in the
year 2087. Five percent of the eligible electorate are drafted
into a "citizens' decision- making corps". Their employers are
directed to give them one day a week release time for this
citizen duty. They are then involved in a combination of F-T-F
and electronic conferencing until they, some 12 months later,
have worked their way through a complex issue to a consensus
decision.

Well, I can dream, can't I?


------
Author's note: Don Straus is President Emeritus of the American
Arbitration Institute and has rich experience working in the
area of conflict resolution and participatory democratic
processes.