Transparent and Responsive Governance

Published by Taylor on July 28, 2008 in Politics and Web 2.0. View Comments

At long last, some reactions from Netroots Nation:

We’ve all witnessed the rise of social media and web 2.0 tools in electoral campaigns. But at some point, in order for that increasing participation of individuals in their chosen candidates’ political fate to influence those politicians’ actions in office, the tools of the social web must extend beyond the campaign sphere to governance itself. This idea fascinates and excites me; after all, the reason many of us welcome and trumpet social media in the campaign space is exactly because we believe that participation in elections will lead to more accountable and responsive elected officials.

It’s easy to claim success on the campaign front. Sure, there are undoubtedly miles yet to travel in terms of involving all voters in the electoral process. But if the 2004 and 2006 election cycles did not convince you that online social tools will be a staple in campaigns—large and small—from now on, just look around at 2008 candidates.

What hasn’t been as visible—or, for the most part, widely accepted—is the use of social media in governance. Fortunately, a number of folks are trying to do something about that disconnect between electoral contests and policy implementation.

Andrew Hoppin moderated a Netroots Nation panel (in the running for ‘most unwieldy panel title at Netroots Nation’) called “Transparency, Participation and Reinvention in Government in the Next Administration Through Web 2.0 Tools and Culture.” Micah Sifry quickly and thankfully renamed the panel “Rebooting Government in 2009.” Hoppin framed the discussion by sharing his own experiences working for NASA in Silicon Valley (at the Ames Research Center). He recalled his frustration, years ago, at the enormous cultural difference between surrounding Silicon Valley and the NASA compound. Outside the gates, the spirit of experimentation and opening networks was driving the success of many start-up companies that are now household names. Inside the gates at NASA, on the other hand, an antiquated culture of closed knowledge and traditional communications and public outreach persisted. (More on NASA and the culture shift that took place at every geek’s favorite government agency in my next post).

Micah Sifry, of techPresident and the Sunlight Foundation, cited efforts to shed light on the legislative process and involve citizens in governance. I’m looking forward to giving these resources a closer look; for now I’ll link to them and summarize:

  • Fedspending.org
    • A database of government contracts and earmarks; sheds light on the enormous volume of no-bid contracts and allows individuals to track spending in their district or as a result of their representatives
    • The site has fielded seven million searches since its Oct. 2006 launch
  • Opensecrets.org
    • Enormous database of political contributions and other campaign finance data; allows voters to track financial data on lobbyists, 527 organizations, and campaign contributions.
    • 1.3 million montly visitors; 26 million searches of the lobbyist database since Oct. 2006 launch
  • Earmark Watch
    • Crowd-sources the examination of earmarks in legislation; anyone can add information about an earmark and question its legitimacy
  • Open Congress
    • Intended as a user-friendly re-packaging of the Thomas congressional database [let me say on behalf of all political science students: amen]; allows individuals to track and comment on legislation
    • As of 7/18, one particular bill (the Emergency Extended Unemployment Compensation Act) had received over 23,000 comments
    • 6,000 users have registered for myopencongress, which enables social features to legislative tracking (“people who are tracking this bill are also tracking…,” etc)
  • Public Mark Up
    • I wrote about this site here, but the idea is to receive public input on draft legislation; Sen. Durbin’s office is thinking of using this platform for the draft version of a broadband bill
  • Politicopia
    • A more localized example (centered on Utah and policy issues in that state); from the site: “Politicopia is a wiki. The site functions as a tool for collaboratively accumulating and presenting information. That could be useful, since information is one of the two elements of political power.”

The genesis of many of these efforts is the attitude expressed by longtime lobbyist Paul Miller, who Sifry quoted in his presentation:

“I don’t think the way you advocate is to put everything online and say, ‘All right American people, weigh in on that,’ because then what’s next?” Miller asked. “Are we going to let the American people decide our defense policy, our trade policy, our immigration policy?”

As Sifry said, “Our answer is: yes.”

Image used under a Creative Commons license courtesy of Flickr user tattingstar2.

If you enjoyed this post, you might also like:

- "Greetings from Texas", posted by Taylor on July 18, 2008

- "Next Up: Collaborative Governance?", posted by Taylor on April 23, 2008

- "Back on the Conference Circuit", posted by Taylor on July 17, 2008

- "Politicians Abandoning the Social Web", posted by Taylor on April 24, 2008

- "Change.gov Goes Live", posted by Jarred on November 6, 2008

  • Sam/'Mike'--thanks for the thoughtful comment and the suggestion. Cross-posted here.
  • Stevens_Dr_and_Diplomat_Dr
    @Taylor ... cross-post on BlueNC? I think it would be a great diary to share.
  • Stevens_Dr_and_Diplomat_Dr
    Below are the opinions and ramblings of a politico, laden with opinion ...

    I got 57/60 on the horribly biased, Reagan-worshiping test that Ashish provided (at Davidson, that would have been a B-). But I digress. I don't think that test is a general knowledge test by any means - and this is coming from a guy whose job it is to know almost every candidate's position on almost every issue.

    @Ashish I'm surprised that you didn't check in with "The American Voter," the landmark dis to the American Electorate. It's even more of a smackdown than John Lennon's "How Do You Sleep?". Now, V.O. Key and many other political scientists responded. Key came back and in his own book says "Voters are not fools." IMHO, the jury is still out, at least based on the 30,000 or so doors I've knocked on in my political lifetime ... anyway, the WaPo had a great article recently about the follow-up to "The American Voter" which reinforces some of your points while providing a silver lining for Pat and others:

    But wait, says Amy Gershkoff, who wrote her Princeton dissertation on issues and voting behavior and now advises left-of-center campaigns on how to target voters. She's got her own sports metaphor. Just as Beltway junkies know far more about policy issues than the average voter, baseball junkies know far more statistics than she does. But she still loves to watch the Yankees.

    "Even though I can't rattle off the batting averages of every person on the team and every person on every other team doesn't mean that I can't derive pleasure from the game," she says.

    In other words, Gershkoff says, she knows enough. Many Americans vote primarily because of one or two or three issues, she says. They might care a whole lot about health care or prayer in schools and not at all about foreign policy, and maybe that leaves them sounding dumb when they're asked about Iraq. But they know enough about the issues they care about, and that's what they vote on.


    Now, does the intellectual prowess of the electorate even matter? I think this is the real question. Already, the most important members of our government are decided by the elite. In this first example, the elite are simply the minority of Americans who can and do vote. In the era of Texas Redistricting and other bipartisan decisions to disenfranchise voters, this elite group's participation in party primaries decides the majority of elections in our nation. Usually, that's 10-20% of the 40-50% that are registered in one party out of the 70% of people that are registered voters ... or 3-7% of Americans. In many races 3-7% of the voters are the "deciders."

    On a home-town note, only 24% of the 66% of the Charlotteans that are registered to vote voted for Mayor in 2007. In a way, they decided whether or not Pat McCrory would be able to run for Governor (a loss would have hurt his chances greatly). He won in large part because Democrats didn't come out to vote ... and because the Chamber of Commerce targeted moderate, educated voters for the Bonds/Transit campaign instead of the traditional Democratic base. Don't believe that was a coincidence.

    It gets even worse down the ballot. The state houses members that make our laws, the judges that interpret our laws, the school board members and county commissioners that touch our daily lives, the district court judges that are the thin black line between us getting a small fine for "improper equipment" and having our license revoked for going 80 in a School Zone ... they have to depend on Direct Mail and other voter contact methods to get their message out, and their ability to do direct mail and contact voters depends in large part on their ability to please prospective donors in real estate & development, finance, law, and other elite groups. This is the second group of "elite."

    Like the tobacco companies that run anti-smoking ads, candidates are the ones who educate the most voters, and this education is funded by the elite and the special interest PACs. Don't kid yourself - even if it's just a few TV ads or a few mail pieces - candidates, parties, and 527s educate the voters, even if they don't know more than one right enumerated by the First Amendement.

    And the media this year is killing me. The presidential race is "tied" when Obama is 100 EVs ahead in electoral college projections? Isn't there a sliver of a chance that reporting from the Wolfgang Blitzkrieg and Gracy Jane types is motivated by profit margins? A blowout isn't good TV.

    @Taylor I agree with the OP. As quixotic as it is, the only solution to our problems is more education and more participation. Otherwise, the elite are the puppets of our political process ... and the only difference between the candidates and the electorate is that the candidates can see the strings.
  • Thanks Nisha! I really admire the work of Sunlight. Thanks for stopping by.
  • I'm glad you enjoyed the panel at Netroots Nation. It is important to get Congress and other government bodies to take transparency seriously and release information. Public information is essential for keeping elected officially accountable. Feel free to check out other resources here: http://www.sunlightfoundation.com/resources/.

    If you have any questions contact me at any timie.

    Nisha Thompson
    Sunlight Foundation
    Organizer and Outreach Coordinator
    nthompson(at)sunlightfoundation(dot)com
  • Oh certainly, I knew you weren't discounting that point. I was merely responding to this comment you made: "I’d like to see more people involved in politics as well, but only if those people make the effort to understand the issues involved." This statement seemed to stem from the deduction that because college seniors performed poorly in regurgitating facts from American history, they consequently don't (or can't) make the effort to understand current political issues. Upon visiting the link you provided, I see that these individuals also failed in responding to questions about institutions, government, and the economy. This is indeed disappointing -- this is an example of something that I, too, think every voting citizen (which I think should be every citizen) should have a basic grasp of.

    My point, applied on a wider scope, is this: the traditional means of evaluating and judging the competence of the younger generations are inadequate. The under-30's think, learn, and do much differently than our elders. There is no question that there is much work to be done in terms of stimulating and encouraging the electorate to think critically about today's problems and the potential solutions for them. But pre-judging their ability or inclination to do so based on misleading data and surveys is not putting the best foot forward in that effort.
  • I'm putting words in his mouth (keyboard? comment box? whatever) but I think when Jarred writes discusses our generation's "abilities to quickly digest, compare, and make choices and judgments about information," he's not just talking about information intake. There's an inherent, as you put it Ashish, "synthesis" toward a "purposeful conclusion." Won't I make a more informed judgment about Roe V. Wade (or abortion in general) by reading expert opinion than by memorizing the case detail or forming an opinion without looking to all of the facts?
  • Ashish
    Jarred, I use Wikipedia as much as anyone, so I'm not discounting the value of being able to instantly and easily look up topics with which I'm not all that familiar. But I think a certain amount of portable knowledge is critical because it's not immediately obvious what lessons a person should take from American history or our current political landscape. A person who can find a lot of commentary and information on, say, Roe v. Wade may understand the history of the case, the subsequent objections to and defenses of the ruling, and the decision's effect on the two parties. But being able "to quickly digest, compare, and make choices and judgments about information" won't really help you here because the proper governmental posture toward abortion isn't really a topic a person can settle solely through the aid of outside input.

    In other words, what matters is what happens when you step away from the computer. What do you feel about what you've read, heard, and seen? The digital age can do a lot of things, but it can't make people synthesize their experiences any better or any worse than members of preceding generations could. That's why we need people to be able to summon, unaided, a decent knowledge of their history, traditions, and culture: So they can use those moments of quiet to shepherd the information they take in to a purposeful conclusion.
  • A very solid point Jrod.
  • Going on a slight tangent, I'm wary these days of surveys/evaluations of what was once considered essential knowledge (see my beef with Susan Jacoby calling America's youth a bunch of dunces). I do not disagree that American and international history are important factors -- among others -- to take into account when making informed decisions about new policies. How important is it really, however, that these factoids be memorized? Absolutely, American voters and other citizens should have a broad understanding of our history, traditions, and interests. But with the rise of the digital era, where we can capture huge amounts of information and (to borrow my employers' slogan) organize it and make it universally accessible... is it that important for every graduating senior to have so much information stored in their brains? While those surveyed may have performed poorly in recalling facts, they probably would exponentially outpace the preceding generations in their abilities to find both general and specific information on the Internet. Why fumble around for names and dates and voting records when it takes less than a minute to find precise (and more often than not, unbiased) information in digital form?

    That's the promise I see in these tools. They give the new, "wired" generation the tools they need to find information and skip the sound bytes. It caters to their abilities to quickly digest, compare, and make choices and judgments about information.
  • Ashish, I think your first point is fair: these tools are slick and impressive at first blush, but what's the ultimate use to the average voter (or non-voter for that matter). I think my answer has a lot to do with your second statement:

    "I’d much rather a smaller group of wonkish and thoughtful people made decisions for the country than a large group of superficially informed dilettantes."

    I would echo your sentiment, but I would say that I'd much rather a small group of wonkish and thoughtful people made decisions for the country than a small group of extremely influential, wealthy, and profit-driven individuals/corporations. I'm not scared about the average voter, apathetic and uninformed as he or she may be. I think the lack of engagement you describe is a call to action for those of us hoping to make this a more participatory nation. Not a reason to confine decision making to the existing halls of power and influence. BUT I'm much more optimistic that people can become informed....I'm not as optimistic that powerful individuals with interests that differ from the country's will voluntarily give up that influence.

    That's where I see these tools coming in. Ideally (and maybe eventually) tools like these will help connect individual voters to the governing process. But in the interim, they at least open up the policymaking space to more of your "wonkish and thoughtful people" who don't happen to work on Capitol Hill or for a lobbying firm with influence. The power of the web, introduced into this governance equation, is that the diverse and dispersed expertise of many people can be concentrated and included in policy debates. While this will still naturally cater to the online-politically-engaged crowd, at least we're hearing viewpoints from beyond the halls of congress or X, Y, Z powerful industry. At least the information's there, to be used by wonks at think tanks and advocacy organizations; to be used by Average Joe, Jane or Jose to follow an issue (like unemployment, in my example above) that impacts their life directly.

    What excites me about these tools is that they're open. The issues of engagement you mention are real and troubling; but if we can make progress on that front, the tools are increasingly available to allow that engagement and participation to matter more than ever. In the meantime, we can at least rely on those smart wonks to use this unprecedented access to information (which will only improve) to inform the rest of us about what's going on.

    Even engaged people rely on shortcuts like Pat mentions. I know next to nothing about health policy, but if I hear that the Senate is voting on a plan in line with recommendations from the Center for American Progress I might call my Senators in support (good luck there, but that's another story). These open platforms for information allow the possibility (I recognize, despite my "feverish hopes," that these are lofty dreams) of broad-based civic engagement in government...BUT (and perhaps more importantly) they also open the gates to a more diverse and, frankly, better group of experts to help keep politicians honest.
  • Ashish
    I've linked to this before here, but maybe this will help you understand where I'm coming from, Pat (Dr. Sellers?).

    http://www.americancivicliteracy.org/index.html

    The civic literacy quiz administered to college seniors produced some dismal results, and no school was represented particularly well. I don't think the questions were unrealistically difficult either. If we can't expect college students to know the basics about American history, how can we expect them to know any other country's? And what would you expect the results would have been if the test had been given to those who never went to college?

    I'd like to see more people involved in politics as well, but only if those people make the effort to understand the issues involved. I don't trust "shortcuts" or bumper stickers (what does compassionate conservatism mean? what exactly does Obama think we can do?), and I certainly don't trust politicians to use such mechanisms for the greater good when they could much more easily use it to keep them in power. (Witness the vacuity of the current campaign.) I'd much rather a smaller group of wonkish and thoughtful people made decisions for the country than a large group of superficially informed dilettantes.
  • Pat
    I question Ashish's negative portrayal of the public's competence. We often hold the public to incredibly high standards of information and knowledge that none of us meet. How many of us know the policy positions of every candidate that we vote for in November? Not me. If none of us can meet a standard, how useful or productive is that standard?

    Most of us tend to fall back upon various shortcuts that often help us make decisions pretty close to what we'd decide if we had full and complete information. The best example is party id. These shortcuts will be more effective to the extent that they reflect long-term attitudes and are less susceptible to manipulation.

    And politicians help us. They know that most of the public doesn't have time to follow all the issues closely (despite Taylor's feverish hopes about Governance 2.0). The challenge of politicians is to present complex issues in an understandable fashion. And yes, some bumperstickers work. "Compassionate conservative"? "Yes we can"? Those are only two examples of very effective slogans that include tons and tons of meaning.
  • Ashish
    Given how poorly informed the public is and how poorly informed everyone is on at least some important matters, how do you think all this will help the typical person (i.e., a person not particularly inclined to research the issues or get organized with people who are)? Isn't the big problem with all the efforts to make people well-informed, mobilized citizens the fact that the vast majority of people don't really care if they're poorly informed and inert--sometimes with justification, sometimes without? How do you change the culture beyond simply making it easier for people to find countercultures (and let's face it, the world of political engagement is itself a counterculture)?

    Speaking of which, the trailer for Oliver Stone's movie on Bush is pretty sweet.

    http://showhype.com/video/oliver_stone_s_w_bush...
blog comments powered by Disqus