P1: C-152-Gronke
Gronke WL040/Bidgoli-Vol III-Ch-07 July 11, 2003 11:45 Char Count= 0
THEMASSPUBLIC 89addition, online voting might lower the cost of voting
for those without adequate transportation. Though this
would involve a significant change in the Internet usage
rate among the poor in the United States, this mobilizing
effect remains a possibility. If universal Internet access
became a reality, the increased percentages of racial mi-
nority voters could help assuage the concerns of critics
concerned about the protection of racial minority inter-
ests in an election. Finally, if electronic balloting is pre-
ceded by widespread “strong talk” and/or “deliberative
polls” (Fishkin, 1991), this ongoing democratic conversa-
tion could substantially improve the quality of democratic
dialogue and decision-making.
On the other hand, critics of Arizona’s election, such
as the nonprofit Voting Integrity Project and the National
Commission on Federal Election Reform, believe online
voting is not currently technically feasible (or, if feasible,
would require violations of privacy that would be objected
to by most Americans) (Phillips, 1999). Internet voting
could also lead to discrimination against those without
access to the Internet and opens up the possibility of elec-
tion fraud (Phillips, 2000). Others argue that it erodes civil
society by individualizing what used to be a community-
based participatory act (Hansen, 2001). Though it seems
evident that low-cost computers and Internet access
might someday soon be universally available, that day is
not yet here. Activist organizations and scholars continue
to criticize online voting for its promotion of unequal op-
portunities in a participatory democracy.
In sum, low-cost computers and universal Internet ac-
cess have thepotentialto revive the movement toward na-
tional referenda (Barber, 1984, p. 281), enhance demo-
cratic discussion, and increase voting turnout. However,
therealityis far less certain. Most importantly, the Internet
could make it even less likely that an individual will find
it rational to participate. Anything that increases the size
of the electorate will simultaneously decrease the proba-
bility that an individual vote will be decisive. More likely,
however, the Internet will provide new channels for politi-
cal organizations tomobilizecitizens and increase partic-
ipation. Only time will tell whether enhanced mobiliza-
tion will equalize political influence, or only exacerbate
existing inequalities, as current mobilization efforts do
(Rosenstone & Hansen, 1993). Internet voting is coming
to a computer near you in the next decade, but likely later
rather than sooner.The Mass Public in a Wired World:
Old Wine in New Bottles?
In 1984, Barber imagined televised town meetings, which
could allow citizens to become more involved in civic af-
fairs. Today, his vision of a televised town hall could evolve
into a teleconferencing meeting that could allow thou-
sands to participate. The key is the technological capa-
bility and bandwidth to simultaneously stream unlimited
numbers of audio and visual inputs into one electronic
meeting room.
This is an alluring vision, but what is the reality of
participation via the Internet? In electronic town halls,
each participant in the electronic town hall must have
the technological capacity—and desire—to participate. Iftown halls wereexclusivelyelectronic, than the universal
availability of high-speed Internet service and fast com-
puters would be a necessity in order to avoid barriers to
participatory democracy. And if just the most politically
interested entered this conversation, the dialogue would
be just as biased toward certain segments of society as it
was in the pre-Internet period.
Unfortunately for optimists predicting a participatory
revolution fueled by the lower communication costs of
the Internet, few studies indicate that the Internet will
have any mobilizing effect—a force that makes political
activists out of current nonactivists (e.g. Davis, 1999).
Although the Internet may have reduced some costs of
getting informed, it has not, as yet, increased citizen in-
terest and motivation.
Furthermore, it is not clear that the Internet will neces-
sarily serve as a force for citizen control. Lawrence Lessig
notes that although the Internet as currently constructed
is a venue for democratized information flow, there is no
reason that it needs to be constructed in this way. It is
just as likely, via control ofcode, that elites, corporations,
and governments will use the Internet to monitor and con-
trol our daily lives. Our cyberidentities and cybercommu-
nication are ultimately subject to the restrictions placed
upon us by those who write the software and manufac-
ture the hardware. In Lessig’s view, the Internet may just
as likely strengthen the hands of large, centralized corpo-
rations and governments. Witness the Communications
Decency Act (CDA) in the U.S. and the many efforts by
other governments (e.g., China, Singapore) to control the
flow of information available on the Web (Lessig, 1999,
2002). Cass Sunstein points out that the very element of
the Internet that many celebrate—individualized control
over the interactive experience—could hamper political
and civic life. A healthy democratic polity requires that
we confront viewpoints that are opposed to our own.
A personalized Internet experience, however, could re-
sult in reading only news that we agree with, participat-
ing in discussion forums with like-minded partisans, and
learning about candidates for whom we are already in-
clined to vote (Sunstein, 2002). And there is no guarantee
that the interest groups, news organizations, and other
well-funded organizations that sponsor such “forums” or
town meetings will allow dissenting voices. What sort of
democratic polity would result from such a “personalized”
world of political interactions? According to Bruce
Bimber, the most likely outcome is “accelerated plu-
ralism,” where America’s already fragmented political
community becomes even more divided (1998). This is
a worrisome vision.
Finally, would an electronic town hall be more effec-
tive and mobilize new participants in the political arena?
A February 2000 article inThe San Francisco Chronicle
detailed the efforts of ActionForum (www.actionforum.
com,) a new Web site in Berkeley, California, designed to
promote increased civic and political discussions. The city
wanted to boost its civic participation because only 418 of
its 108,000 citizens spoke at city council meetings in 1999.
The site, which consists of an upscale newsgroup bulletin
board, received 75 postings in its first month of use. The
Chroniclereported that most of the authors were familiar
faces on the political participation circuit (Holtz, 2000).