The Web Fueling A Crisis In Politics? 322
An anonymous reader writes "The BBC is reporting that Tony Blair's outgoing chief strategy adviser fears the internet could be fueling a crisis in the relationship between politicians and voters. 'Mr Taylor said Mr Blair's online grilling from voters — and other initiatives such as environment secretary David Miliband's blog and Downing Street's new online petition service — showed the government was making good progress in using the Internet to become more open and accountable. But he said more needed to be done by the web community in general to encourage people to use the internet to "solve problems" rather than simply abuse politicians or make "incommensurate" demands on them.' 'But rather than work out these dilemmas in partnership with their elected leaders, they were encouraged to regard all politicians as corrupt or mendacious by the media, which he described as "a conspiracy to maintain the population in a perpetual state of self-righteous rage." Whether media was left wing or right wing, the message was always that 'leaders are out there to shaft you.'" Some credit was given to the Internet for high voter turnout in this month's elections ... how is that a bad thing?
Wahhhhh... (Score:4, Interesting)
Honestly they brought it upon themselves.. The dirty spear campaigns have existed since the civil war and they will continue, the net is simply a new tool they realize they can use.
Great Spin (Score:5, Interesting)
Basically, deal with it.
What ? Did Politicians do anything to solve - (Score:3, Interesting)
you have sucked people's blood for over centuries. very little 'people's men/women' have been able to pass through your elite circle and become heads of state/ministers.
go away pal. no can do. internet is a new thing, it is 'us', and 'we' are going towards direct democracy step by step.
How Dare They! (Score:3, Interesting)
I went through this.
Growing up, in a public school: Government works for our benefit
Then, as an adult I came to understand: Government works for its own benefit
I understand that we VOTE for the government: Government works.
Or as Churchill said: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
This is not to say that there is no injustice.
Just because I want our government to:
Free John Murtari! In jail and on hunger strike Since July 31st, 2006!
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/52668/jo
Doesn't mean that I don't love my country.
High voter turnout is a bad thing (Score:3, Interesting)
It's a bad thing because it means that merely relying on a party's base to come out and vote isn't enough. In the most recent election, the Republicans had a higher number of their people turn out than did the Democrats.
However, the large independent vote is what turned the tide. Independent voters turned out in higher numbers than in previous midterm elections and voted overwhelmingly for Democrats.
So yes, high voter turnout is a bad. But only if you're one of the two major parties because it screws with your polling numbers. Witness Karl Rove's pronouncement that the entire media world was wrong when it was saying there would be a Democratic takeover of the House and Senate because he, Karl Rove, was looking at 68 polls a week and he had "THE" math to show that Republicans would hold onto both houses. Partial transcript [pollster.com]
Managing the media and the fourth estate (Score:2, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Now That's What You Call Ironic (Score:3, Interesting)
The so-called 'Iraq War', where no one in Britain wanted our soldiers there, no one saw the need to have our soldiers fight and die 'for their country' there and where politicians repeatedly lie bare-faced to not just the country but the families of those who've given their lives. And they wonder why there's rage? Wow. What a closed world those Downing Street thinktanks are.
The rage has absolutely nothing to do with a conspiracy by the media or people on the internet. It has everything to do with politics and democracy simply being less and less relevant to getting anything done or sorted out these days. If they want a right-wing party like the BNP or someone else to come to power then they're going the right way about it.
Errrr. Well what are people supposed to do? Paint over the wrongdoing, corruption and utterly silly ideas flowing out of government? Pretend that none of this stuff ever happens? This just sounds like someone who's frustrated that there isn't a controlled media and where they can't control what people write and what they see.
Might I suggest that the government, heaven forbid, does something good that people can blog about?
Never was anything truer said. It also matches up to reality as well.
Ridiculous (Score:4, Interesting)
And this is a crisis? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure everyone was thinking this WAY before the internet. The idea that the average person thinks "Politicians are crooked" only since the internet came about is ridiculous! The only difference is that the internet makes that more visible. The same thing with the "incommensurate" demands of Joe Sixpack. Of course we all want to pay no taxes and receive a ton of money in Social Security when we retires, but a lot of people don't understand that it's impossible! But now because of the internet the average person gets heard. It should be obvious that what is on the mind of the average voter is actually a very good thing for a politician to know, even if it is ridiculous demands and distrust of leaders.
Re:He has a Point (Score:4, Interesting)
The things you're citing from the article are high-level problems that actually could have used government intervention to guide a common effort into a better place for everybody. They have been identified for a long time as something that needs real leadership on (energy sustainability, equity of opportunity for economic advancement of the young and poor, etc.) as these issues require concessions to be made on all sides and real leaders to broker a compromise between the competing interests. Sadly, we get none.
These people are there to serve the public interest, and not line their pockets in a perpetual job. They have lost sight of this.
For the author to essentially complain that "They asked us for transparency, and then bitched and moaned because what they saw on the inside was rotten to the core," is absurd. Of course we should complain! We aren't and weren't normally afforded the insight and oversight to make sure the current state of affairs never came to pass. We elected our representatives and expected them (naively) to do their jobs. And many of those representatives have had their positions for longer than much of their constituency has been alive (hyperbole, but not by much), at least here in the States. I'm not sure how easy it is for an incumbent to be re-elected in England but if it's anything like the States then said representative complaining that the constituency is restless probably is/was/has been part of the problem to begin with.
People say you get the government you deserve -- I believe this is true only if the government is truly accountable to the people. In the US, for at least as long as I've been alive, this has not been the case.
C
Re:That has got to be the funniest thing I've read (Score:3, Interesting)
And there is your problem - ask why it takes $500,000 to get a seat.
Because people vote for a face they're familiar with, regardless of how well they know them; and because $500,000 is how much buisnesses are prepared to pay for the ammount of power they can get from this person.
Not an easy problem to fix, but the best one I see is either make publicity cheaper with the internet, and/or remove the ammount of power those people have and spread it around a bit more.
Unless someone has a better idea?
Re:High Turnout (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the Republicans appear to have won the 2004 election by magically creating millions of votes out of nowhere... it's probably not the best example for the point you're trying to make: The exit polls were right -- Freeman and Mittledorf [inthesetimes.com].
And in general, it's a pretty well-accepted truism that high-turnouts in the US favor the Democrats -- ir appears that conservatives are better about getting their act together to fill in forms, which is not necessarily something for the Democrats to be proud of. Though on the other hand, if you're inclined to think of the Democrats as the party of the little guys, that appears to be pretty accurate -- a lot of the voter fraud exploits the Republicans were using in 2004 involved trying to disenfanchise the downtrodden (e.g. ex-convicts, black people, etc).
Re:That has got to be the funniest thing I've read (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, there's the initial filing fees, the campaigning inside the party to get the nomination, the TV time at $10,000 for a single 30 second advert, the campaigning against other candidates- democracy in a free market is expensive even if your main form of advertisement is just handbills (printing costs money!)
Because people vote for a face they're familiar with, regardless of how well they know them; and because $500,000 is how much buisnesses are prepared to pay for the ammount of power they can get from this person.
Yep- and unfortuneately the salary-to-campaign-costs is a logrithmic scale- the higher up your are, the more the corps are willing to pay your challenger, so the more you have to spend to get the seat.
Not an easy problem to fix, but the best one I see is either make publicity cheaper with the internet, and/or remove the ammount of power those people have and spread it around a bit more.
Unless someone has a better idea?
Not better, just different- how about removing personhood, and therefore free speech rights, from the corporations? Then at least you're down to individual private contributions instead.
Re:In other words... (Score:5, Interesting)
Voters want results, but not costs:
Better schools without raising taxes.
Cleaner power... but Not In My Back Yard!
Cheaper housing, but no more construction
Et cetera
At least in the real world, if you want to make those gripes, you have to write in to your local paper, or attend a town hall meeting... where the politicians can respond to you directly.
Better ideas (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, I have a better idea.
This evens the playing field such that people who are probably electable (demonstrated by signature gathering) all have equal access to media, etc. Those who manage that access best and send the voters the most successful message are elected. No "sideways" moneys may be used at any time, including moneys from the candidate's own fund EXCEPT if the candidate wants to opt out of the govt pool, in which case the candidate may spend up to the amount the other candidates get from their own pocket. This amounts to a nice civic gesture, but cannot affect the amount of marketing available to the candidate as it does not result in a difference in the amount of funding. As a registered voter, you could sign one or more "I want to run" lists; that way, if there are two candidates you'd like to see run, you could help get them both on the ballot. This in turn would do away with the two party system (because political parties would not be allowed to market themselves in any way that involved spending money, only individuals would and even then, only when they have enough certified signatures.)
With the political parties gone, two thresholds have to be set. One to pass laws; another to disenfranchise them. My thought is that about 80% should have to vote for a law to get it operative, and about 40% should have to vote against an in-place law to knock it out. 30% of the representatives asking for a vote on an in-place law forces a vote. This biases the system towards only passing, and keeping, laws that really apply to the population in general instead of one group of loud crazies. If something turns out to be a social fad (like these idiots who are voting "defense of marriage" into law) then it is relatively easy to retreat from such a stance, just a small change in outlook, one vote, and bingo, it is gone.
Anyone caught taking bribes or falsifying a signature on a vote-for-me list goes to jail for life. Or we can shoot them. Just so long as they don't get to spend the bribe, run for office, or otherwise continue to screw up the system.
Man fears what he cannot control (Score:2, Interesting)
It's very similar to hollywood vs. internet piracy. It's not the internet or piracy that is making movie ticket sales dive, it's shitty product.
They need to take a whif of the stuff their shoveling!
Good: let's discourage smart people from politics! (Score:2, Interesting)
In fact, I've always thought it would be interesting to do an index that tracks the number of people who work for government and their respective ability levels (degrees held, etc.) and compares is with the overall work force to see what percentage of human resources are wasted.
(This post dedicated to the late, great Milton Friedman.)
Re:High Turnout (Score:3, Interesting)
Really! Millions. Do tell! (as opposed to just making stuff up, now)
a lot of the voter fraud exploits the Republicans were using in 2004 involved trying to disenfanchise the downtrodden (e.g. ex-convicts, black people, etc).
If, by "ex-cons" you mean "felons," then you should understand that allowing them to vote is election fraud. Until the law changes in most places, activists trying to get felons somehow into a voting booth are the ones committing the crime.
And, "black people?" By what mechansism are you finding voter registration to be tied to race? If that's your focus, how would you explain the (primarily dem) activists who just got busted for producing thousands and thousands of completely fictional registrations in predominantly urban areas like Kansas City and St. Louis? The same people registered multiple times, dead people registered, and completely fictional people with fake SSNs, etc? All registered in districts aimed at boosting votes against more conservative candidates. "Millions" of fraudulant votes? Come on. That would stick out like a sore thumb, which isn't the same as being a sore loser.
Re:That has got to be the funniest thing I've read (Score:4, Interesting)
A friend of mine ran for congress in the election just past, on almost no money at all. She was able to get the nomination largely because she's a Democrat in a heavily Republican district, so the heavy hitters weren't interested. Even when the race got unexpectedly close, the party refused to assist her in any way - not even returning phone calls - on the basis of historical voting patterns in the district, completely ignoring the problems that her Republican opponent was having. In the end, she was outspent something like 100:1 (refusing to accept corporate contributions), and lost by something like 4 percentage points.
I'll never know if she would have been "incorruptible" in office had she won, or if she'd ever have been able to get anything done there, but it would have been interesting to see.
Re:That has got to be the funniest thing I've read (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Better ideas (Score:3, Interesting)
I can't stop you. Legislation can stop you, though. If required, a constitutional convention could make any changes needed and then legislation can stop you. The constitution needs some work anyway; right now, it's mostly interpreted by the government as a license to steal, as near as I can tell. I'm not saying this would plug right in; I'm just saying it's a lot better way to go about things than what we're doing now, which is broken, broken, broken.
You don't think getting legislators in based on merit as opposed to pocketbook will affect national security?
Yes, actually, you can. It is this idea: Money, and money-amplified speech, is force. If you get to use money, and I don't, the battle is unequal and you're committing assault on a weaker entity who is unable to compete to such a battle, which idea is not related to merit or equality. If we are to match our ideas based upon merit, then merit is all we should be allowed to bring to the table. Not how many times we repeat ourselves, or the ability to speak to a wider audience. There are plenty of laws that restrict this "independent action" with the idea of enhancing the system: You can't say certain things within certain distances of voting stations, for instance. The principle that speech must be controlled in order to maintain equal access is already well established at the lower levels. All we have to do is generalize it upwards.
The problem with the current system is that "liberty" is really "liberty X money", and therefore, equality falls by the wayside. Money as an idea-amplifier needs to become a non-factor, so that ideas stand, or not, on their perceived merits.
This is a huge change. Arguing that it won't work because it's a change is kind of disingenuous. Implementation would be a bitch, I'm perfectly ready to stipulate to that. But it could be done, and I'd like to see it happen. The merits of the idea are considerable, IMHO. I'm sure others could improve it, as well.