Copy Link
Add to Bookmark
Report
Netizens-Digest Volume 1 Number 532
Netizens-Digest Sunday, October 19 2003 Volume 01 : Number 532
Netizens Association Discussion List Digest
In this issue:
Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd)
Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 17:03:40 -0400
From: "Howard C. Berkowitz" <hcb@gettcomm.com>
Subject: Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream? (fwd)
>Howard,
>
>[my text snipped]
>> From the perspective of a political scientist, do you think it
>> clarifies the discussion not to use the generic term "democracy", but
>> always one of the more specific terms "direct democracy" or
>> "representative democracy"?
>
>That's generally a step in the right direction. However, "direct
>democracy" tends
>to evoke decisionmaking by referendum, and that isn't (I think) what
>Ronda has in
>mind, either. Or, to put it another way, direct democracy could be a form of
>governance or government, whereas Jesien's statement seems to
>disavow both. (I
>don't mean to imply that Ronda agrees with everything Jesien says.)
Thinking about what you are saying, and questions to you and to
Ronda. If "direct democracy" implies referenda and a voting process,
should there also be identified a "consensus democracy" that does
_not_ call for voting? Again, I'm searching for precise definitions;
it is my sense that consensus models are extremely difficult to scale
to large populations.
>
>> >In particular, it struck me that Ronda quotes, I think approvingly,
>> Jesien's
>> >statement that begins,
>> >
>> > "Almost in front of us, and almost unnoticed the new kind of
>> > citizenship is evolving. . The Netizenry -- those who use the
>> > Internet. Without much attention, without governments and power,
>> > without financial incentives and social entitlements. But using
>> > the Internet today is a sign of belonging...to those who exchange
>> > ideas, who participate in something important, in a common cause.
>> > There is no question of governance there, nor the question of
>> > representation, but there is full, ultimate and direct
>> > participation."
>>
>> The classic argument about direct democracy is one of logistics --
>> before electronic communications, it simply did not work in groups of
>> more than a thousand or so.
>
>It's worth noting that the authors of the Federalist seem to have been very
>suspicious of decisionmaking assemblies even smaller than that --
>although I can't
>recall that they set a specific number.
>
>> That argument is not as strong with the possibility of electronic
>> voting, so another argument or set of arguments come up. Today's
>> world, as well as allowing mechanisms for large-scale direct
>> democracy, also is inundated with advertising and opinion molding. In
>> a classic town meeting with direct democracy, advocates of a given
>> position usually could be challenged before a vote, and real debate
>> took place. It's awfully easy, in electronic communications, for a
>> relatively small set of people to debate, and it's much less likely
>> (based on current experience) to get participation beyond the vote.
>> Even if every member of a large community did post a comment, at some
>> point, it becomes logistically impractical to read every comment,
>> reply, have reasoned debates, and then cast a thoughful vote.
>
>It's not _logistically_ impractical for every member of a large community to
>participate to the extent that he or she is prepared to cast a
>thoughtful vote. (I
>don't mean to twist your words here; I agree that it is impractical
>for every person
>to read every comment, etc. -- and various people have wrestled with
>these issues
>of scale.)
I think we are in agreement. Electronic voting certainly can scale
immensely -- but how do we make it more deliberative than something
like a CNN instant poll?
> Perhaps a more fundamental problem is what Downs wrote about in
>_An Economic Theory of Democracy_ (with respect to elections): since each
>individual can calculate that the probability of his or her vote
>determining the
>outcome is infinitesimal, there isn't much rational basis for
>putting much effort into
>forming thoughtful positions.
>
>> >John Horvath isn't much interested in discussing a form of democracy that
>> >exists "without governments and power," with "no question or governance...
>> >nor the question of representation." Horvath is concerned, I think,
> > precisely
>> >with the question of how the Internet affects the world of governments.
>> His
>> >emphasis on communication with elected officials no doubt is too narrow,
>> >but the question remains, how does (and how might) the practice of
>> >Netizenship influence what "democratic" governments actually do?
>>
>> A different scalability argument applies to communication with
>> elected (or appointed) government officials. The good news is that
>> with a smaller voting or regulating group, there is at least the
>> _possibility_ of having manageable debate. There quickly comes a
>> question if the representatives are simply there to convey the
>> current opinion of constituents -- essentially driven, in modern
>> terms, by focus groups and polls -- or whether the representatives
>> are elected and trusted to present what they consider to be a
>> consensus position of their constituents, with qualifications.
>>
>> These qualifications should have been examined closely at election
>> time, because there will be times where a representative will vote
>> his or her conscience, not necessarily the majority opinion's.
>> _Profiles in Courage_, by John F. Kennedy (and ghostwriters) has good
>> examples.
>
>I hope I won't sound like a knee-jerk critic of elected officials
>when I suggest that
>sometimes representatives vote neither their conscience nor majority opinion.
You mean, "how can you tell an elected official is lying?" "Her lips moved."
We have a more precise usage in networking:
"What is the difference, Grasshopper, between a seller of used cars and
a seller of network products and services?"
"There are two, Sensei. First, the seller of used cars knows when he or
she is lying. Second, the seller of used cars usually can drive."
>
>But _if_ more people were drawn into rich discussions on policy issues, the
>opinions that emerged would probably pose fewer challenges to
>elected officials
>consciences than slavish adherence to polls and focus groups would. (How many
>fewer? heck if I know.) I could elaborate on my point, but I'm not
>sure it is very
>important.
>
>> Let me close with another question: is it necessarily advisable to
>> have the fastest possible input of direct democracy, if the goal is
>> to operate a government that actually has to carry out policies?
>
>I don't really understand the point of the question, so I probably
>shouldn't try to
>answer it.
There's a news media driven tendency to get "instant opinion polls,"
which are the antithesis of deliberative. A few days ago, CNN ran
one along the lines of "do you think Saddam is in Syria?"
Let me put it this way -- I have a far better understanding of
intelligence collection and analysis than most people. It would take
me quite a while even to begin listing the input information that
would go into analysis. I'd then have to get the data, some of which
(e.g., electronic intercept satellites) tend to be in the "burn
before reading" category. Even with "all source intelligence" (a
term of art), I certainly wouldn't be able to give the yes or no that
CNN requests.
>I suspect many of us would agree that the most successful forms of
>deliberative dialogue on the Internet take place over days or weeks
>or months, so
>the "fastest possible input" is really not an issue for us. Dick
>Morris did write a
>rather horrid book called Vote.com, with a website by the same name,
>but I'm not
>sure I've ever heard anyone argue that this is a good idea (and even
>Morris doesn't
>suggest that the results should be binding anytime soon, if ever --
>I've forgotten the
>seamy details).
>
>Again, as far as I can tell, Ronda Hauben and Jesien really aren't
>advocating "direct democracy," so I doubt that our comments about direct
>democracy would cut much ice with them. In past personal conversations with
>Ronda, I've never did sort out how she would link democratic
>deliberation to actual
>decisionmaking, i.e. government and governance.
Not singling out these individuals, I often find that the more
distributed the discussion process, the less clear it is what entity
will carry out policy -- or if there even is such an entity.
>
>Mark Lindeman
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2003 20:08:27 -0400
From: lindeman@bard.edu
Subject: Re: [netz] Democratic Promise or dream?
Ronda,
It's wonderful to have you back in the discussion.
> Yes Mark it isn't that I or it seems Jesien are referring to
> decisionmaking by referendum.
>
> The important part of what both Michael and Jesien referred to is the
> participatory nature of democracy. Actually, isn't that what democracy
> actually means as a term. It doesn't mean representation.
Well, honestly, that depends (at least to some extent) on which dictionary you
consult. For instance, the first definition in American Heritage is "Government by
the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives." Notice
the emphasis on government as well as the openness to the representational
understanding.
I don't want us to get hung up on "what democracy actually means" when the plain
fact is that it means different things to different people (not just us). Is there some
mutually unambiguous language we can use?
> > > > "Almost in front of us, and almost unnoticed the new kind of
> > > > citizenship is evolving. . The Netizenry -- those who use the
> > > > Internet. Without much attention, without governments and power,
> > > > without financial incentives and social entitlements. But using
> > > > the Internet today is a sign of belonging...to those who exchange
> > > > ideas, who participate in something important, in a common cause.
> > > > There is no question of governance there, nor the question of
> > > > representation, but there is full, ultimate and direct
> > > > participation."
>
> The point in this quote from Jesien's article is that netizenry
> "participate in something important".
>
> That is it seemed to me the point of the paper he did.
That sounds about right. My main thought was that, for this reason, Jesien is
talking past Horvath -- who may think that these things are important, but whose
interest in the Internet and "democracy" seems to focus on what governments do.
> > > The classic argument about direct democracy is one of logistics --
> > > before electronic communications, it simply did not work in groups of
> > > more than a thousand or so.
> >
> > It's worth noting that the authors of the Federalist seem to have been
> very
> > suspicious of decisionmaking assemblies even smaller than that -- although
> > I can't
> > recall that they set a specific number.
>
> But the federalists didn't have the ability to have discussions online :-)
>
> In one of his articles Michael refers to Rousseau saying that it wasn't
> in his time possible most of the time to have a general assembly where
> all can participate (chapter 18 of Netizens
> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120)
>
> And Michael refers to Mill's idea of freedom of the press as the needed
> alternative to Rousseau's idea of a general assembly.
>
> Now we have a means for many more people to have access to the Net than
> ever before had the ability to contribute to the press.
The Federalists' concern about big assemblies (or the one I have in mind) had to
do with mob psychology, not the ability of individual participants to speak. But I
agree that the Net opens up wonderful opportunities for people to participate, both
in 'speaking' and in 'listening.' Further, not only is it not especially subject to mob
psychology (at least compared to large live assemblies), but it isn't subject to their
time pressures (cf. your next point). I am nothing less than a fan of Internet
deliberation.
> In the discussion on the website of the "Time of India" in response
> to their editorial "Netizens Unite" I would estimate about 1000 people
> participated.
>
> Also my experience online at times is that one can say something,
> have many people disagree with one, and then come back to the discussion
> two weeks later and have the discussion centering on the point that
> was made two weeks earlier. In the two weeks time the discussion was
> such that people are treating the idea with seriousness, even though
> they didn't do that initially.
>
> Chuq (one of the folks on early Usenet) has commented about that in
> some of his discussion of how ideas that were not greeted initially
> in a way that welcomed then, had a way of being treated seriously
> even if the person who first proposed them didn't stick around for
> the discussion.
Yes, this is an example of how the net can facilitate prolonged and therefore more
reflective deliberation.
> > > >John Horvath isn't much interested in discussing a form of democracy
> that
> > > >exists "without governments and power," with "no question or
> governance...
> > > >nor the question of representation." Horvath is concerned, I think,
> > > >precisely
> > > >with the question of how the Internet affects the world of governments.
>
> This is a helpful clarification.
>
> The issue of government, however, can't be understood if one separates
> it from the citizens who are part of the governing entity.
>
> The government, whether it consciously recognizes it or not, is
> connected with those who it is claiming to govern in the name of.
Certainly. But as an answer to "how the Internet affects the world of
governments," this is of course fairly general. Let's see if things get clearer below.
> > > A different scalability argument applies to communication with
> > > elected (or appointed) government officials. The good news is that
> > > with a smaller voting or regulating group, there is at least the
> > > _possibility_ of having manageable debate. There quickly comes a
> > > question if the representatives are simply there to convey the
> > > current opinion of constituents -- essentially driven, in modern
> > > terms, by focus groups and polls -- or whether the representatives
> > > are elected and trusted to present what they consider to be a
> > > consensus position of their constituents, with qualifications.
> > >
>
> All of this is outmoded, however, as there is now the possibility
> of interactive discussion, rather than "focus groups and polls".
>
> The interactive discussion is a dynamic process that can produce
> something different from what one started with. While polls concern
> themselves with the questions that are formulated, rather than
> with evolving some understanding of those questions.
I think you and I agree that citizen deliberation is much better than focus groups
and polls. The fuzzy part is just how broad "all of this" is. Do you mean that
Internet discussion obviates even the need for representation? Then, it would
seem that you would need to specify a mechanism by which discussion is
translated into specific policy decisions. Or do you mean that Internet discussion
provides (or could provide) reliable information on considered citizen preferences?
That might be true, but the issue of how representatives should respond to those
preferences would remain (assuming that representatives remain).
> > I hope I won't sound like a knee-jerk critic of elected officials when
> > I suggest that
> > sometimes representatives vote neither their conscience nor majority
> opinion.
>
> And neither of the two alternatives match the alternative that would
> be the result of a reasoned discussion with diversity of opinion
> considered.
Even in a reasoned discussion with diversity of opinion considered, the idea
of "majority opinion" is not irrelevant, is it? Or do you think that reasoned
discussion always leads to consensus? Your examples below imply that perhaps
you do.
> > > Let me close with another question: is it necessarily advisable to
> > > have the fastest possible input of direct democracy, if the goal is
> > > to operate a government that actually has to carry out policies?
>
> There is often time to have discussion before some decision is to be made.
>
> And that considered discussion has the basis to lead to better decisions.
Here I think we agree (but this "has the basis" phrase puzzles me... more below).
> > Again, as far as I can tell, Ronda Hauben and Jesien really aren't
> > advocating "direct democracy," so I doubt that our comments about direct
> > democracy would cut much ice with them. In past personal conversations
> with
> > Ronda, I've never did sort out how she would link democratic deliberation
> > to actual
> > decisionmaking, i.e. government and governance.
> >
>
> I guess I don't quite understand, Mark, why you find it so hard to
> think of how democratic discussion will be able to affect actual
> decision making of government and governance.
>
> The development of the Internet is a model in fact of where
> people would discuss differences and in the process work out the problems
> so that good decision making could take place.
Ronda, does this imply that you think the reason existing governments don't make
good decisions is that they don't have appropriate mechanisms to discuss their
differences and work out the problems? It probably isn't enough just to say that
the decisionmakers' interests are at odds with citizens' interests -- because,
palpably, the decisionmakers often disagree with each other. If the Internet is a
model, etc., does this imply that e.g. the U.S. Congress would function better if it
used the Internet instead?
> That has at times been my experience as well online.
>
> For example, there was a discussion about creating a newsgroup that
> would be the newsgroup for people in the press to look at if they
> wanted to write about Usenet. It was to be a moderated group.
>
> Through the discussion of why it might be a problem to have a moderated
> group as a place to refer journalists to, as then whoever did the
> moderating would have the ability to determine what journalists
> read or didn't read, the discussion evolved to the point where
> what was created was one moderated group for announcements but
> an unmoderated group for discussion.
This implies that everyone agreed -- or, more likely, that people didn't exactly have
to agree because there was no great cost in creating two groups instead of one.
This seems not to be a very hard test of democratic process.
> In one of my papers about the history of Usenet, I described how Mark
> Horton asked people if they felt that the name of Usenet should be changed.
> He was going to put out an update of the Usenet software.
>
> He asked people to participate in the discussion. There was a long
> and considered discussion and afterwards it was clear it would be
> better not to change the name of Usenet.
I have two problems with this as a test of democratic process: again, the stakes
are very low, and again, I'm skeptical that the conclusion was "clear" to absolutely
everyone who participated in the discussion.
> The point of discussion where differences are explored and discussed
> is that it becomes a dynamic process that has the basis to solve
> a problem.
I don't disagree with this, depending on what exactly you mean by "has the basis" -
- - but I do disagree that all problems can be solved by exploring and discussing
differences. I would love to agree, but I do not. (When I say that I "disagree," I
mean with the statement, not with you; I remain unclear exactly what your own
position is.)
Best,
Mark
------------------------------
End of Netizens-Digest V1 #532
******************************
