P1: C-152-Gronke
Gronke WL040/Bidgoli-Vol III-Ch-07 July 11, 2003 11:45 Char Count= 0
THEMASSPUBLIC 87way to think about the impact of the Internet on politics
and political action. In general, early commentaries as-
sumed that the Internet would work its wonders on the
cost side of the equation, making it easy and cheap for
citizens to learn about candidates, and allowing citizens
to personalize their Internet experience, so that a partici-
patory revolution would result. These early analyses failed
to take into account the fundamental barrier to participa-
tion: interest and motivation. We are already buried under
an avalanche of political information; increasing the flow
will only make it harder to manage the “information tide”
(Graber, 1984, 2001). There is little indication, at present,
that the Internet has significantly lowered the costs of par-
ticipation (Davis, 1999).
But the Internet may work changes in the future. The
Internet might inflate perceived benefits, if it provided a
way for candidates and parties to contact voters and let
them know about the advantages of one party over an-
other. The Internet could allow citizens to see interests
where they did not exist before, by allowing the creation
of “virtual communities” of interest (Davis, 1999, Chap. 6;
Turkle, 1997; but see also Bimber, 1998, for a caution-
ary view). Or it may provide an avenue for organiza-
tions to encourage political participation as an act of
civic duty. This may mean that mobilization efforts will be
cheaper and easier. Finally, it is possible that, by dissemi-
nating more accurate information on the relative support
for each candidate, the Internet could lead to more pre-
cise estimates of “probability,”most likely depressing lev-
els of participation. I examine each of these possibilities
below.
A second theory, theinstitutional modelof politics,
dovetails nicely with this model of participation. Politi-
cal action does not occur in a vacuum: individuals are
embedded within a larger set of social and political in-
stitutions. Intermediary organizations, such as interest
groups, political parties, and the mass media, communi-
cate the preferences of the mass public to governmental
actors, educate the mass public about the activities of gov-
ernment, and mobilize the public to participate in politics
(Verba, Schlozman, & Brady, 1995; Rosenstone & Hansen,
1993). In an institutional model of politics, special inter-
ests, lobbying groups, “issue publics,” and political elites
are important engines of political change, with the mass
public primarily choosing among the contestants at elec-
tion time. With respect to the Internet, the institutionalist
model turns us away from the mass public, and instead
asks how the new tools of e-politics may have strength-
ened or weakened the influence of pre-existing intermedi-
ary organizations and possibly allowed new organizations
to enter the fray.
Second, the institutionalist model highlights the im-
portance ofpolitical informationfor understanding po-
litical power and influence. Whether elites control the
mass public or vice versa, the primary point to remem-
ber is that the cost, accessibility, and accuracy of po-
litical information are a key part of democracy, just as
obviously, information flow is thesine qua nonof the
Internet. Beyond its role as a tool for intermediary or-
ganizations to mobilize the public and influence the gov-
ernment, the Internet could provide a way for citizens to
influence government directly, bypassing intermediary
institutions.To summarize, the political world consists of the mass
public, elites, and pre-existing political institutions. A
careful survey of politics must consider the motivations
and interests of each set of actors in the political pro-
cess if we want to understand how a new and potentially
revolutionary medium such as the Internet may change
the political world. Although the Internet may not change
politics in one realm (e.g., it is unlikely to fundamentally
change citizen interest or perceived benefits from partic-
ipation in politics), it could provide invaluable tools in
another realm (e.g., making it far easier to raise money,
recruit volunteers, and mobilize voters).THE MASS PUBLIC
Lowering the Costs of Participation
via Low-Cost Computing
In the poorest sections of New York City and in the Indian
reservations of Arizona, most households deem them-
selves lucky to have a telephone, much less a computer
with access to the Internet. For all of its promise as a mo-
bilizing force, the World Wide Web is simply useless in
such places today. Before a move occurs to widespread
online voting or Internet domination of political discus-
sions, a larger portion of the population must have ac-
cess to personal computers than is the case today. Luckily,
the price of a PC has declined in a relatively predictable
manner for almost two decades in concert with a steady
rise in computing capabilities. Such trends will almost
undoubtedly continue for at least several years into the
future.
Several characteristics of personal computers improve
so steadily as to have “laws” coined based on their pro-
gress. For example, “Moore’s Law” states that the number
of transistors on a microchip doubles each year (Moore,
1965). Likewise, the cost per megabyte of DRAM falls
by an average of 40% each year (Hennessy & Patterson,
1990, p. 8). Because a recent estimate of low-end ma-
chines placed the percentage of material costs attributable
solely to DRAM at 36% (the highest ratio of any compo-
nent), there is significant room for improvement despite
the seeming bargains found in retail stores. Gains made
in video systems and monitors (summing to another 36%)
will also contribute strongly. As long as the price for which
a machine is sold does not fall below its material costs and
construction overhead, computer manufacturers will at-
tempt to sell PCs in bulk and profit from volume.
The commoditization of the Internet PC may someday
make the machine as widespread as the telephone or the
television. When the computer achieves such household
status, it indeed seems likely that it will become the pri-
mary means by which political information is gathered if
not the primary method by which political participation
takes place. But if previous telecommunications revolu-
tions have not transformed political participation, why
will the Internet?New Tools for Political Learning
and Interaction
Information is thesine qua nonof the Internet. In the
near future, changes in technology may lower the costs of