 |
|
|
|
11/13/00
Politics and the Internet
by Jake Davenport
The Presidential election has consumed the public focus of late, and with good reason. On the table for discussion are a number of related but very different issues: the power of state governments, the popular vote vs. the electoral college, vote "swapping", vote counting, and voting in general. For the first time in recent memory the American public is actually interested in the political process.
It's a good thing that all of this has happened. The so-called controversy surrounding this election should surround all of them: that is, we should be compelled at every turn to improve the process, to force accountability, and to have our voices heard. For the past 20 years the U.S. political system has been the subject of scorn and derision on the part of its constituents and the result has been overwhelming "voter apathy" and underwhelming voter turn-out. This year, though, people began to believe that their votes might actually count for something (nevermind that they always count for something - this is about perception, after all).
The big surprise to everyone, though, is actually how little one's individual vote counts within the greater context. The electoral college stands as a barrier between the President and the popular vote, a fact that was less known a month ago than it is today. The electoral college's origins are complex and controversial (click for more information), but the real reason for its existence is actually fairly sensible.
In the early days of the United States, the states themselves had the majority of political and social power. The Federal government was not much more than a nurse maid, providing an overall structure and general services such as a military, a means of handling interstate commerce and travel, blueprints for citizens' rights, etc. The framers of the Constitution devised the system so that the populace in each state had direct and total control over their respective elected officials, specifically the officers of the state (governor, state house and senate, etc.). Additionally, each state's populace was given the same level of authority over their Federal representatives, namely their Senators and members of the U.S. House. However, giving control of deciding the chief Federal officer - the President - to individuals in each state was not reasonable within the original context.
It made much more sense, at least then, to provide a system with a separating layer between the popular vote and the only governing Federal official. Remember that there was no television or telephone or Internet in the late 1700's, so the ability of Presidential candidates to gain exposure in the nascent country's vast landscape was limited at best. Very few individual citizens would have had knowledge about the Presidential candidates or their platforms. This fear - that an uninformed populace would be selecting the chief executive of the Federal government - was at least a partial motivator in creating the electoral college.
More importantly, though, the framers likely felt that it was not up to the populace to determine who would be the next President anyway. After all, whoever was the President would have very little direct impact on the people in each state, but would have an enormous impact on how each state governed itself and related to others. Keeping in mind that the objective was to give the states as much sovereignty as possible, it stood to reason that the Presidential election should be decided by designated representatives of each state, not by the general population of the country.
Within this perspective, the electoral college should be seen not as a divisive tool implemented to keep the people at bay, but rather as an outdated but sensible solution to what was at one time a real problem. To approach the electoral college with indignance or outrage is to approach it out of context, but it is certainly clear that its time has passed.
We no longer live in a world of horse-drawn carriages, cobbled streets, and gas lamps. We are no longer confounded by geological barriers when accessing information. Even more interesting, states no longer have even a fraction of the power that they used to, at least not regarding many of the issues that the U.S. President and Congress attempt to work through. We live in a global economy and our representatives are well known to us through television, newspapers, magazines and, of course, the Internet.
The Internet - the great equalizer - has opened doors to limitless information, opinion, and art. Our lives are enriched in ways that television and radio - controlled by large corporate interests - could never imagine. Even now, as you read this, you are experiencing a unique facet of the Internet: direct, personalized communication.
It's ironic that, even after 40 years of television and 60 years of radio, it took the Internet to put a face on mass media. Perhaps it is because it is so versatile, so customizable, so flexible, or perhaps it is because the power is now in our hands - the hands of the people. No matter what combination of the above factors, the result has been an explosion of participation in all areas of our culture, from opinion polls to information sharing to commerce. It is only natural that the next step on the Internet is for the people - us - to reclaim the political process through this technology.
Now is the time to push for changes in our system, while the problems inherent within it are still clear in our minds. We need a viable means of verifying our votes, via receipt or other avenues. We should eliminate the outmoded electoral college and give the ability to elect Presidents to the general population. No longer can the sovereignty of states or the lack of information be blamed for keeping the barrier in place. Further, the Federal and state governments should be put to task to devise a standardized methodology for receiving and recording votes. Moreover, there needs to be a secure and reliable technology that allows for voter registration and even voting over the Internet. Perhaps each person should be assigned an IP address, much like a social security number, to be used only in state and general elections.
The possibilities are endless, but it's up to us to proceed forward. The Internet has changed the way we see our world, and our government must conform to our new standards - not the other way around.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
