Electronic Democracy (Part I & II)
by Dave Hughes

[The following comments are part of a current discussion on
'electronic democracy' taking place on DCMETA. Although many
others have responded, Dave Hughes has taken this opportunity to
share his rich experience. Through his comments we get a look at
a vibrant example of technology applied to politics.]

August 31
=========

Things are not just complex at state and national levels.
Having operated a free-dial-up computer system with a major
section devoted to public policy debate and politics with over
15,000 different individuals and over 70,000 calls to it over 5
years I am aware of how even among those already 'online' what
a relatively small proportion can/will take the time to get
into city or county matters - some of which are very complex.

*But* I also think that there can be a wholly new approach to
the concept of 'representative' governmnet. To put it
colorfully and metaphorically, we may be electing 'sysops' in
the future to represent us!!!! The very thing that Arterton
[author of a recent study of 'electronic democracy'] cites as a
problem (those who set them [systems] up want to 'set the
agenda') is a subtle signal that the person who most may be
involved is the one who is at the center of the telecom system.
Think carefully of what a role even tv anchormen and radio talk
show hosts are playing in 'setting the agenda' for many a
national or local debate.

In my own case, I am astonished at how many people come to me
to represent them using my electronic political skills. Now I
am active (Issues Chairman) of the local Democratic Party, have
a rather conspicuous reputation for my use of telecom to
challenge elected officials using just a BBS approach, yet I
get called, dialed up, visited by 4 hard-rock Republicans in
town for every Democrat to help *them* in their political
cause. Its amazing. And when I am asked to run for a variety of
offices I respond, "I don't have to - I am able to get lots of
things done without sitting up there, trapped." And there is a
Republican once-office holder who has a counterpart system
across town (and feeds editorials into a local tv station) that
is in a similar position.

So I see the possibility of significant changes in the whole
question of democracy-in-action. One example from local TV,
which is backing into it. They have a digitized telephone
service "City Line" which they promote at every newscast.
Originally started as an ad-supported dial in for suich things
as stock quotes. Anyone with a touchtone can call voice, hit
the right keys, and get what they want in voice - free.

But increasingly at the 5 o'clock news they take some hot local
issue and invite the public to dial in and vote 'yep' or 'nope'
with their key pad, and put the result on the air at 10
o'clock. For a medium town to get several thousand 'votes'
recorded on almost every issue is amazing. But it also depends
of the on-air discussion which has taken place - always led by
press figures.

Let me tell ya! They may be called 'polls' but they are
influencing policy! And it is but a tiny step from neutral
'reporting' to editorial advocacy.

Cross over to 'legal' voting? Dunno. But when I start my
Electronic Mountain Town (with Teleport) you can be sure we will
experiment with all forms of such local 'government.'

Electronic Democracy may already be here, and we just don't
want to acknowledge it. Excuse me, I gotta log onto my own
system, three local journalists are going to me me there
tonight at *my* Electronic City Hall!

Footnote on Rereading - Arterton says 'cost a lot?' Sure a lot
of over-kill types set up these elaborate sessions with live
interactive television conferencing etc. My *very* effective
political BBS that I ran for 3+ years with 50,000 calls 26,000
messages from 8,500 people cost me $8.50 a month (phone line),
an hour a day to tend, about $250 worth of repairs over three
years, running on a $1,800 micro.

Ridiculously small amount for what it did. So little that I
have been able to make the case at the city and county that
this technology can be far cheaper than the way they are doing
it now!

That's why Colorado Springs is now looking into creating their
own 'Electronic City Hall'. And I still have that micro and
software! Anybody wanna buy a used system for $500?

September 1
===========

The new City Councilman I helped elect via city BBSs has gotton
the clearance from the City Attorney to discuss everything up
to 'quasi-judicial' matters online, so long as acess to the
discussion is open to all and free. Only question will arise if
*two* or more councilpersons come into the same discussion.
Then they gotta announce it in advance like other 'meetings' !

I will give you the one, obvious reason why Qube failed. It was
based upon everyone just being able to 'vote' on public issues.
The essense of politics is *discussion*, with the final vote a
kind of necessary, legal, ritual. Qube had the ritual without
the substance!

---

September 4
===========

Online *everybody* gets to say their piece - whether anyone
else takes heed or not. Unlike almost any public meeting I have
attended of any size with a conroversial subject. And the
ability to 'go back again' and pick up subtle points not
grasped the first time around (heh heh I just re-read *your*


comments carefully before responding.)

But there is another dimension to this question of 'apathy'.
And that is sheer modern 'complexity' of public issues.

Frankly, a lot of public matters are so horrendously complex
and requiring more than a smattering of math, science, cultural
expertise even to understand, that it is very hard for many
(most?) in the general population to participate intelligently.
Nuclear power, air traffic safety, automobile pollution (there
is a raging debate going on on my system right now - triggered
by State Representative Renny Fagan and State Air Quality
Control Commission Member Roland Gow - over the proposed
imposition of a requirement that all gas stations sell only
'oxygenated fuel'. Lots of the public is just bedazzled by the
subject. And I, and Renny Fagan were 'attacked' online today by
a caller for our ignornace of Organic Chemistry! Lemme tell ya.
It takes a little chutzpah to argue with a Chemical Engineer -
online or off!

September 5
===========

I happen to believe that we haven't begun to scratch the
surface of the possibilites of Electronic Democracy. Almost
every 'objection' to it can be met by either technical, or
information management techniques - *very* few of which have
been tried.

And remember we ought to be measuring whether or not an
Electronic Political Process is better than the one we have
now, not just whether it approaches a 'perfect' (everybody
participates-everybody votes-evryone is represented) system.
For god knows we have serious problems with the one we have
now, which has been intensified by the one-way-media form of
electronic debate. (which the FCC just helped along by removing
the requirement on TV to carry both sides of an issue)

No Sysop I know has ever set things up so that the caller can
put the Sysop (or its sponsors) through the '3d degree' before
committing themsleves to be in their 'data base.' Many is the
time I have dialed into a strange system, had all these
questions asked of me for 'registration' when I have no idea
whether I should 'trust' te sysop with my personal information
- government system or not! Sysops jsut assume that *they*
should be trusted, while grilling new users. And, with the
capbility of just about any micro/modem user (except those poor
backward souls who just use *dumb terminals*

One can 'download' commitments, promises, answers given you by
a sysop, keep it, and take it to court with you if the need
ever arises. The Electronic Communications Privacy Act passed this
(last? - my how elecronic time flies) year gives users of
electronic means recourse at law for the misuse of ones
information entered into certain systems.

So maybe the time has come to set up 'government' BBSs so that
the new caller can - online - extract legal, binding,
commitments from the adminsitrators, or 'negotiate' what is
needed. Hey, Government, in the Electronic Age the burden will
be on *you* to prove to *me* you are worthy of my login!! Not
vice versa.

And it is far easier for government to determine
-electronically - that the caller is who they say they are and
have 'legal' standing (registered to vote, etc), than for the
individual to 'qualify' a government BBS. But quite possible at
both ends.

We just have to start thinking a-new about how to do this
within the framework of our political ideals and fundemental
system of government. Problem is that everyone has been making
the mistake futurists warn of - trying to linearly 'project'
the present methods into the future. The nation had to cope
with problems of high mobility, identification of voters in a
mobile society, absentee-voting (WWII), etc!

[continued next month!]