When looking back at this autumn's off-year elections, we may well remember 1994 not as the year one scoundrel was voted out and another in (there's nothing new about that), but as the year computers began to have an impact on the electoral process. Sure, computers have had a role in elections for the last couple of decades, but usually in background mode--printing mailing labels, cross-tabbing voter preferences, and the like. This year's election was different, however, and the prospects are that in the upcoming 1996 presidential election we'll see computers play an even greater part in deciding who stays at home and who goes to the state house.
This fall, politicians realized that the future of politics may well be linked to computer networks. At the national, state, and local levels, candidates are roaring down the information highway at breakneck speeds. These days, a politico without an e-mail address is as naked as, well, Wilbur Mills in the Reflecting Pool. Want to let President Clinton know what you think about health care? Drop him a note at president@whitehouse.gov. Need to tell the Democratic party you're willing to go door to door? They'd be glad to hear from you at 72203.601@compuserve.com. Know the name of a good barber? Newt Gingrich needs one, and he's only a few keystrokes away at georgia6@hr.house.gov. All in all, nearly 100 members of the U.S. House and Senate have e-mail addresses, a mere drop in the ballot box to the greater number of state and local candidates who are online.
Although e-mail remains the most common form of political dialogue, candidates and parties are also using computer networks to distribute position papers, press releases, and related campaign material. In CompuServe's Republican Forum, for instance, you can download everything from discussions of the crime bill to comparisons of how the Dole/Packwood approach to health care stacks up against both the Clinton/Mitchell and Clinton/Gephardt proposals. You can even get GIF image files of Reagan, Bush, Quayle, and the Republican elephant logo.
One reason behind this surge in online political activity is that electronic dissemination of information is cheaper than the traditional hardcopy alternatives. It cost a lot of money to print and mail all those political brochures you threw away this fall. Computer networks have also become the rallying point for grass-root activism, as online aficionados download and share information with their nonnetworked neighbors. Still, the main reason for all the excitement is that position papers can be made available to the public unfiltered by what's usually seen as a hostile press. (Political activist and former DDJ editor Jim Warren initially met disinterest and skepticism when working to bring the proceedings of the California legislature and other government-related information onto the Internet. Things didn't start popping until he pointed out to politicians that they could talk directly to the public without having to go through the press.)
Both politicians and voters have realized that the press--in particular the broadcast media, the primary purveyor of political information in the U.S.--hasn't been doing its job. In his book, Democracy and the Problem of Free Speech, for instance, Cass Sunstein reports that about 60 percent of the press coverage in the 1988 national campaign dealt with who was leading the race on a day-to-day basis, with only 30 percent focusing on substantive issues and qualifications. More specifically, 75 percent of CBS's coverage of the 1988 "Super Tuesday" primaries dealt with these "horse-race" issues, while only 9 percent of the comments had substance. Overall, according to one study that examined more than 7500 broadcast and print stories, less than 10 percent of the political stories were on policy issues and less than 20 percent were on candidate qualifications, while more than 36 percent were again horse-race oriented. Similarly, network broadcasts presenting uninterrupted blocks of speech from presidential candidates averaged about 9.8 seconds in 1988, down from 42.3 seconds in 1968. (Of course, the cynical among us might wonder if the candidates had much of importance to say.)
There are numerous reasons why the broadcast media has shifted from its role as public watchdog to public clown, not the least of which, everyone from the FCC to broadcast advertisers believes that what we want is entertainment, not substantive information. Consider that in 1949, the FCC said that the role of broadcasting was "the development of an informed public opinion through the dissemination of news and ideas concerning the vital public issues of the day." Contrast that to the words of Mark Fowler, who said of his years as FCC chairman during the 1980s: "It was time to move away from thinking about broadcasters as trustees. It was time to treat them the way almost everyone else in society does--that is, as businesses. Television is just another appliance. It's a toaster with pictures."
Whatever the reasons, the net result is that the broadcast media has served up watered-down information that's void of real issues. As an alternative to broadcast journalism, the information highway gives voters the opportunity to examine facts and form opinions--even though the FCC and media giants still see the information highway as entertainment. At the recent "Business in the 21st Century" conference in Kansas City, for instance, a speaker from the FCC explained how the information highway will be defined by "video dial tone" and entertainment broadcasting.
Concurring with this belief that entertainment is the driving force behind computer networks are political pollmeisters, the primary (financial) benefactors of the media's move to public-opinion polls. Pollster Richard Hertz believes that "even in mass-market vehicles like TV and newspapers, people aren't paying much attention to politics. They're probably buying CompuServe to meet the cyberperson of their dreams or check out their stocks or make an airline reservation." He then brushes off online political activity by simply saying "with a telephone and a 29-cent stamp, you can do pretty much the same thing."
An October 1994 survey by MacWorld magazine would suggest otherwise, however. In a national poll that asked 600 adults what interactive capabilities they wanted, the magazine found that electronic voting in elections was number one on the list, while entertainment-oriented video-on-demand was tenth. Not only that, but opportunities for participating in electronic town halls, obtaining government data, and getting tax information were also preferred over entertainment.
What started out this fall as a trickle has a chance of building into a flood in 1996, as voters use computer networks as a political tool. No one expects every voter to be online, nor will all of those who are tapped into the net be necessarily interested in politics. Still, more than one national election has been decided by fewer than a million votes, and with 20 million U.S. citizens already on the Internet alone, online politics can be a force. If nothing else, an active, informed public with a voice and vehicle of its own might force broadcast news to clean up its act. If so, we'll all win--and then maybe I can turn on my television again.
editor-in-chief
Copyright © 1994, Dr. Dobb's Journal