Deliberative participatory politics – where the people and their leaders are engaged in a continual dialogue – was once the foundation of American town hall democracy. However, in today’s system of strict representative government our leaders rarely consult the public except during election campaigns. Lateral dialogue between citizens has been deterred by what seems to be a widening division between the people and their government. The failures of today’s politics could be described as a communication breakdown. The question to be explored is whether or not the solution lays in the Internet.

The nation is buzzing with talk about using the Internet to change democracy, as we know it in this country. There have been suggestions that we vote on line. We can now contact our congressmen in a matter of minutes to voice our concerns on any number of issues. There is a direct link to the White House, via e-mail. Citizens can comment on an issue and receive a timely response. No doubt there are numerous advantages to using the Internet to improve communication with our government. There are many examples already in use. The technology exists today, which could make a more true democracy possible. Many argue that it is just a matter of time before this idea takes off and begins to remodel our government. Is this a situation we are ready for? While I realize that there are benefits to improving our communication with government, I hope that others realize the limits and do not push for any type of radical transformations in the structure of our government.

We do not live in a true democracy and it is important to understand why. Most importantly the United States is simply too large in terms of both geography and population for a direct democracy to be feasible. It is virtually impossible for every voice to be heard. Even if today’s and future technology could increase participation and give everyone a voice in government, it would take entirely too long to incorporate all views and make our system less efficient.

Our founding fathers, when creating the constitution and planning our system of government, believed that government must rest on the consent of the governed yet they all shared a distrust of direct democracy. They feared a tyranny of the majority as much as they feared the tyranny of a minority, the concentration of power in too few hands. From the very beginning those men at the constitutional convention were inclined to create a republic, or representative form of government. This type of government has the power to create and enforce laws but would derive its authority indirectly from the citizens through elections. James Madison described this government as a "mixed" form of government, one that minimized the possibility of tyranny of either the majority or minority by combining democratic and representative elements. I feel our founders did a commendable job. That is not to say that I think there is no room for improvement in our current system.

One forum that is gaining popularity and helping to get citizens more involved is the electronic town hall. What is an electronic town hall? (For clarification; electronic town hall is used interchangeably with Electronic Town Meeting or ETM). The idea is based on the New England town meetings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries when ordinary citizens debated the issues of the day and then voted yea or nay. "Government" in these days meant face-to-face discussions of community issues among all citizens. With the population such that it is, it is not likely to find a place big enough to house an entire city or a local municipality. The Internet provides a place for citizens, despite geography, of a government, whether it be local, state, etc., to gather and exchange views. Some of these forums allow people to vote and the votes are used to reshape legislation.

Today there are a number of ETMs devoted exclusively to public affairs. One success story is the Public Electronic Network (PEN) in Santa Monica California. Started in February of 1989, the network was created to enhance civic participation in community affairs. Users are able to send in comments to city official and they receive a response within 24 hours. Members of PEN can also participate in any of the 300 on-line discussion groups, check the bulletin board for city services and public meetings and access the city’s computerized library catalogue. PEN is free to all Santa Monica residents. Public response has been exceedingly good. PEN had several thousand subscribers in 1992 and the numbers of participants has continued to grow.

The most important requirement of the ETM today is that it be interactive. While bulletin boards and access to critical information are important in the education of citizens it does little to change the negative perception the average citizen has about government. People that take the time to research the issues concerning government want to know that there opinions matter and are heard. I believe for ETMs to be successful they must provide a medium for lateral as well as horizontal discourse. People should be given the opportunity not only to voice their concerns to their representatives, but also to discuss and debate issues among themselves.

These types of forums are great for obtaining information and for giving public officials a better sense of how to serve the people. ETM can certainly make people more knowledgeable about politics and current issues. It gives citizens a more direct link to their representatives. However, we must be cautious. Using the Internet as an ETM could be a formula for either new public enlightenment or a country run by mouse click impulse. It all depends on how the ETMs are designed.

Many others and I have numerous fears about actually using these forums to govern. First, I will address the problems with electronic feedback. The problems lay in the lack of deliberation. A considerable number of advocates actually propose a constitutional amendment to institutionalize electronic referenda and possibly a direct popular democracy. How do we know that when a referendum is presented on the web or over e-mail that a person has considered the pros and cons of the referendum before casting his or her vote? There is always the possibility that some would vote who have no clue as to what is being presented. Deliberation is key to creating laws. Our congressmen, for the most part, must debate every piece of legislation and are forced to hear both sides of the issue. While our process is sometimes slow we can be confident that no laws are created in a matter of minutes with no real thought behind them. Michael Schudson makes an interesting point. "Proposals for instantaneous mass decision making actually seem to have fewer safeguards than are available for important consumer decisions. People may have waiting periods to buy a gun or to get a marriage license or have to sign contracts in the presence of witnesses. They may even have three days after pledging their fortunes to a door-to-door salesman to change their minds. All of this helps to ensure a level of serious consideration in private transactions. It would seem strange indeed to call for less rigorous protection for public deliberation," (Schudson, "The Limits of Teledemocracy"). Deliberation takes time and unfortunately technology quickens the feedback loop.

We need to also decide if we really want public opinion to govern. George Gallup in 1935 was responsible for attempting to ascertain the public’s opinion with his national polling system. Gallup’s idea, while noble, didn’t turn out to be as democratic as he had anticipated. Columnist Christopher Hitchens charged that "opinion polling was born out of the struggle not to discover the public mind but to master it. Pollsters have the power to in effect wield the gavel at the town meeting to frame a question in such a way as to limit, warp, or actually guarantee the answer," (London, "Electronic Democracy"). Ross Perot in his 1992 presidential election campaign is responsible for popularizing the idea to use ETM’s to gage public opinion. He bought a half-hour of time on ABC and asked millions of people to fill out ballots in TV Guide. From his ballot we can see evidence of this polling type manipulation. One of the questions was, "Do you feel trade agreements have cost this country Jobs?"(Schwartz, "Are you ready for the Democracy Channel?). This is an example that exemplifies the point. When polling, the answer depends on the question.

The next major problems with ETM’s are the problems of participation and representation. There are still far too few people on line. Social status, education, geographic location, race, etc. are still major determinants of who will be likely to participate in these types of forums. Some have suggested that we install public computers with Internet Access in local supermarkets, convenience stores and other places throughout the country to insure that everyone has equal access. The problem with this idea is that even if the physical tools are there, it is unlikely that less educated people will participate do to lack of technological know-how. To be truly representative the participants must embody the diversity of the United States in all aspects.

Another concern is that even if there were equal access to the technology required to participate, many Americans would not. The voting record in this country is not encouraging. Half of registered voters do not even bother to show up to pick their president. People simply may feel too busy or are too apathetic to participate.

It is obvious that this topic deserves attention. There are pro’s and con’s to using ETM’s as anything more than an information source. My hope is that these new opportunities allowed for by the Internet be used only as a supplement to our current system of representative democracy and that any ideas of substituting the Congress or Senate with a body of netizens be reconsidered. I do not believe whatever the technological possibilities, that this is a country ready for direct popular democracy or self-government. I hope the ETM forums on the local and state level continue to expand. The public should definitely be supplied with information about our government if they so desire. However, in my opinion, using the ETM’s as governing tools based on public opinion only would be devastating to this country.

www.naturespace.co.nz/ed/ ("New Zealand’s Electronic Town Hall")

www.vote-smart.org/

www.vote.org

www.west.net/~insight/london/tele.htm (London, Scott. "Teledemocracy

vs. Deliberative Democracy: A comparative look at two models of public talk."

April, 1995.)

www.eff.org/A/E-voting/democracy_online.article (Schwartz, Evan. "Are you ready for

the Democracy Channel?" 1994.)

www.epn.org/prospect/11/11schu.html (Schudson, Michael. "The limits of

Teledemocracy." 1992.)

www.law.vill.edu/chron/articles/ana/_elect_town_halls.html

cttnet.uwaterloo.ca/electrpmocdemocracy.htm (London, Scott. "Electronic Democracy –

A Literature Survey." March, 1994)