3 ms·

Well in the interest of discussing that, I do have some thoughts: >could US and other electoral processes (and let's just say government in general) have been

by eduren 9y ago

Well in the interest of discussing that, I do have some thoughts: >could US and other electoral processes (and let's just say government in general) have been directly affected by technical means One could claim that an intrinsic variable in democracy is the "voice" of any one citizen. For lots of years that has stayed stable. If a politically minded individual wanted to affect change, they could only "shout" so loudly. They could spend day and night lobbying, petitioning, speaking, getting elected, but all that effort is only a constant multiplier. Technology in politics, just like in other areas, can move the needle orders of magnitude more effectively. When any one person or organization can use technology to add voices (apps, hacks, robots, etc), it can exacerbate issues and cause secondary effects that weren't present when 1 person = 1 voice.

drvdevd 9y ago
I find this point to be very insightful, thank you. Hits the nail on the head of what I think is happening as well. I think this has changed politics in fundamental ways that the public is not yet ready to understand.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
That's a very astute point and speaks to the concept of grassroots advocacy (my specialty) and multiplying one voice into many on an issue. A problem arises, however, in that increasing voice through technology for political means is in a constant battle with government systems designed to minimize that voice. Like spammers versus spam filters. For example: When I worked in a congressional office back in 2005 we used a system called IQ to log, process, and respond to all of our mail. Emails that came in that were the same were reduced to a single message. We never saw the 4,000 individual emails, only one with a counter. The system then would parse that out and show us how many were actually in our congressional district. Often it was between 1 and 2 percent. Thus we had the option to ignore that issue because it was only 1-2% of those who "mattered". Newer systems do this so much better, and really block out those apps and the technology. The spam filters are incredible. So now the tactic is to go hyper local, recruit local, and use a lobbyist to leverage those local numbers. "Hi I'm a lobbyist, and on behalf of 300 of your constituents and eleven companies in your district, I'm here to talk about something important...."

by eduren 9y ago

drvdevd 9y ago

I find this point to be very insightful, thank you. Hits the nail on the head of what I think is happening as well. I think this has changed politics in fundamental ways that the public is not yet ready to understand.

Overtonwindow 9y ago

That's a very astute point and speaks to the concept of grassroots advocacy (my specialty) and multiplying one voice into many on an issue. A problem arises, however, in that increasing voice through technology for political means is in a constant battle with government systems designed to minimize that voice. Like spammers versus spam filters. For example: When I worked in a congressional office back in 2005 we used a system called IQ to log, process, and respond to all of our mail. Emails that came in that were the same were reduced to a single message. We never saw the 4,000 individual emails, only one with a counter. The system then would parse that out and show us how many were actually in our congressional district. Often it was between 1 and 2 percent. Thus we had the option to ignore that issue because it was only 1-2% of those who "mattered". Newer systems do this so much better, and really block out those apps and the technology. The spam filters are incredible. So now the tactic is to go hyper local, recruit local, and use a lobbyist to leverage those local numbers. "Hi I'm a lobbyist, and on behalf of 300 of your constituents and eleven companies in your district, I'm here to talk about something important...."