On the eve of the 21st century, it is important to ask: What is the quality of political information in the nation today–and hence the quality of democratic governance–and can new communications technologies improve it?

Democracy is an interactive form of government. Democracy today exists in the millions of daily "interactive communications" between citizens and their elected representatives. These interactions must be high in quality, quantity and accuracy, and they must rest on a foundation of trust if they are to sustain a system of democratic governance. 

The enemy of trust is ignorance. An important 1996 Washington Post public opinion poll reported that those Americans who knew the least about government were the most likely to be mistrustful and cynical toward it. For these cynical citizens, ignorance quite literally had bred contempt. 

Unfortunately, today the level of citizen distrust, suspicion and disillusionment toward the government appears to be increasing. In 1964, for example, about 62% of all Americans said government could be "trusted to do the right thing." Almost 30 years later, in 1993, only 14% shared that level of trust. In some states, over 50% of voters reported their belief that legislators routinely "take bribes." National voter turnout has dropped from 63% in 1960 to about 50% in 1996, the lowest in any industrialized democracy. In some local elections, voter turnouts have dropped below 10%. 

James Madison’s famous warning is still applicable: "A popular government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy; or, perhaps both." Without adequate information, the likelihood of America’s system of democracy surviving in its current form into the next century is increasingly in doubt. 

Is it coincidental that, just as democracy is exhibiting significant signs of arteriosclerosis, new forms of interactive digital communication–using computers, modems and the Internet–are rapidly emerging? 

In 1995, for the first time, Americans bought more computers than TVs, sent more e-mails than surface mail and transmitted more data messages than voice messages. The Internet’s World Wide Web, which barely existed a few years ago, now has over 40 million visitors, and 55 million more are poised to become users in the near future. America On-Line (AOL), the nation’s largest on-line company, had one million subscribers in 1994, five million in 1996, ten million in 1997–and predicts 25 million by the year 2000.

Interactive democracies are invariably affected by new systems of interactive communications. It is thus important to ask: 

Candidates are rapidly adjusting to the Internet as a medium for political persuasion. During the 1992 national election, none of the major Presidential candidates had World Wide Web sites. By 1996, all of them did. 

In the 1996 elections in Santa Monica, California, 22 out of 51 candidates (43%), ranging from candidates for U.S. President to local Rent Control Board, had e-mail or Web pages. In the November 1997 City of Seattle election, 22 candidates out of 40 (55%) had e-mail or Web sites.

Citizens, too, are using the Internet for political information in increasing numbers. A February-April 1997 national public opinion poll reported that of the 40.6 million Internet users in the past year, 69% of the men and 61% of the women used it for news, and 48% of men and 43% of women used it for government and community content–more than music (45%/34%) or games (39%/34%). 

Internet users are also decreasing their reliance on traditional media. About 35% say their use of TV has decreased, 16% report a drop in newspaper reading and 13% say the Internet has diminished their reliance on magazines.

Of course, the importance of the Internet to political communication is still minor compared to that of television. Although today 20% of all voters are on-line, 99% of them have television. In 1996, the Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional and State Gubernatorial candidates spent up to $1 billion on television and radio time. Internet expenditures probably did not exceed $6 million. 

This will change, perhaps more rapidly than we can imagine. The Internet continues to grow at an exponential rate. Internet video and audio technology, now in their infancy, are rapidly improving. WebTV and other companies are working to bring the World Wide Web to millions via their television sets. Telephone and cable companies are launching higher-speed modems. And the prices of computers and modems are dropping.

Most importantly, users report that they want to use the Internet to access political information. 

Preliminary evidence from one such experiment, The Democracy Network, suggests the answer is yes. 

In 1996, the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles created The Democracy Network, a real-world, working "laboratory experiment" to determine whether new uses of the Internet could improve the political dialogue between candidates and between candidates and voters. The Democracy Network (www.democracynet.org) has now been tested in five elections.² Preliminary data indicates that such new uses of the Internet offer considerable hope for improving the nation’s political discourse. 

The Democracy Network offers candidates and voters free access to a wide range of features and options.³ Perhaps the most significant is the Issue Grid. (See Display #2.) The Democracy Network allows electoral candidates, using a password and unique ID number, to access a private section of The Democracy Network’s Issue Grid, pick an issue from a pre-existing menu or create their own issue, submit a statement of up to 1,000 words (currently in text, but next year in audio or video as well) on that issue, and then sign off. A large red check mark automatically appears in the public portion of the Issue Grid, indicating that the candidate has submitted a position on that issue. At the same time, the words "No Comment" appear under names of the candidate’s opponents, and those opponents are notified of the new issue by e-mail or fax. Candidates can add new statements on issues as many times as they wish.

Viewers, by clicking the check marks, can view the candidates’ full statements; clicking the issue itself provides a chronological comparison; and clicking the candidates’ names offers biographical and endorser information. Viewers can also e-mail or fax candidates to comment on their positions or ask them why they have not taken a position on a particular issue.

The Issue Grid creates new incentives for candidates to debate each other. Candidates who do not take a position on an issue raised by an opponent will be displayed as having "No Comment." Candidates who do respond or who update their positions will have their positions displayed first, at the top of the display, in chronological order. Because The Democracy Network is free and easily updatable at all times, candidates find it easy to respond to opponents’ arguments. Voters can watch the debates unfold over time.

This new approach to political debate has a number of important benefits over television. (See Display #3 for a summary.)

(1) Broader Range of Issues.   Because television is an expensive mass medium, it forces candidates to focus their limited advertising budgets on a few central, hot-button issues ("crime," "immigration," etc.) and ignore most of the others. Candidates cannot afford to spend their valuable campaign resources on issues which might be of concern to only a relatively small (e.g., ten percent) of the voters. By contrast, The Democracy Network encourages candidates to address a wide array of issues–issues which, in many instances, the candidates would have avoided in other media. Democracy Network participants failing to respond to an issue raised by their opponents occupy the equivalent of an "electronic empty chair" at a debate: a "No Comment" indication in contrast to their opponent’s large red check under the issue topic.

These incentives work. In the November 1997 Los Angeles State Assembly special election, for example, the front-runner at first placed no issue statements in The Democracy Network’s Issue Grid. A challenger then added five positions, leaving the front-runner with five "No Comments." Within days, the front-runner responded by adding his own positions on all five issues. A few days later, another challenger raised three new issues–one on funding for the arts, another on labor unions. Again within a few days, the front-runner responded on all three issues. 

A few weeks into the campaign, the candidates had engaged each other over eight substantive issues. Clearly, the front-runner would not have addressed these issues without the stimulus of an "issue challenge" from his opponents. Indeed, it is likely that the front-runner did not even have positions on some of the issues raised (e.g., arts funding) and developed them only to meet the intellectual competition.

(2) More Substantive Discussions. Television teaches candidates to avoid taking detailed positions on specific issues unless absolutely necessary, since staking out specific positions runs the risk of losing voters who may disagree. Television thus tends to cultivate generalities and bromides by candidates, not detailed and thoughtful positions on specific issues.

The Democracy Network rewards candidates who provide voters with specificity. In the 1997 Los Angeles City Election, for example, the candidate expected to win a vacant city council seat added a vague and generalized position on a local zoning issue. A short time later, a challenger cited her own credentials in fighting rampant development and argued that the front-runner, as an aide to an outgoing council member, had contributed to unchecked growth. Given this challenge, the front-runner responded. She presented a detailed accounting of her record and listed all her most significant zoning accomplishments.

The critical difference between television and The Democracy Network is this: With television, the candidate (or the candidate’s campaign budget or advertising agency) controls the time and number of advertising messages seen by the voters. With The Democracy Network, the voter determines which messages he or she will view, and when. Because voters using The Democracy Network are seeking information, not platitudes, they become impatient if they do not immediately find what they seek. This requires candidates using The Democracy Network to present their messages directly, and in sufficient detail, to hold the voter’s attention. The result is an enhanced dialogue between the competing candidates.

(3) More Positive and Fewer Negative Messages. Television messages are aimed at viewers who have not actively sought them out. Viewers watching the evening news or the football game, for example, have not chosen to watch TV commercials from candidates for governor. Because viewers’ intellectual attention is not focused on candidates’ messages, TV commercials seek to leave them with a strong emotional residue (the candidate is "strong," "courageous," etc.). Too often, however, this emotional message is a negative one directed at the candidate’s opponent. Research has shown that viewers remember a negative message longer and more vividly that a positive one. When candidates fall behind in a race, their managers invariably urge them to "go negative."

Candidates using The Democracy Network confront a significantly different audience–one composed of viewers who are are actively seeking information on the candidates’ positions. These viewers, because they are focused on obtaining information important to them, are impatient with generalities, evasions and negative attacks on opponents. They have spent time using The Democracy Network to understand the candidates’ positions on issues, not to watch attacks on others. For this reason, candidates using The Democracy Network have primarily submitted positive and not negative statements for the Issue Grid. 

The Democracy Network also reduces the dangers of last-minute negative attacks. If one candidates delivers a negative or even false TV ad a few days before the election, an opposing candidate may not have the time or budget to rebut it or present a truthful counter argument. Because The Democracy Network is both free and immediately updatable, however, it gives candidates, who are unfairly subjected to last-minute attacks, the ability to rebut them instantly. Negative mesages via The Democracy Network, therefore, do not leave such a lasting impression, and, because they are easily and quickly rebutted, tend to be made less often.

(4) Increased Use of Multi-Lingual Messages. America is increasingly a multi-lingual society, but voters rarely see messages in languages other than English, particularly on television, because the cost of producing them is often higher than the anticipated returns. Access to The Democracy Network, however, is free to candidates, and it contains virtually unlimited digital storage capacity. For this reason, candidates are able to place statements in the Issue Grid in multiple languages. In the recent Los Angeles Mayoral election, candidates placed statements on "Education" and "Immigration" in the Issue Grid in both English and Spanish.

(5) Improved Debate Stimulated by "Third Party" Candidates. In the typical television debate, the limits of time often force debate organizers to exclude those candidates who are thought not to have a serious chance of winning. With over 250 candidates "officially" declared in the 1996 presidential campaign, clearly only a few leaders could efficiently be included. Ross Perot’s exclusion from the 1996 Presidential Debates is a recent example of this phenomenon. 

The Democracy Network offers all third party candidates legally qualified and on the ballot an equal opportunity to present their views beside the visible leaders. This has not significantly increased the ability of third party candidates to win elections. But it has allowed them to play what is perhaps their true, and most important, role: raising new issues and stimulating the electoral debate. Third party candidates participating in The Democracy Network have prodded the leading candidates to address new issues that would otherwise have avoided, if only to avoid the "No Comment" label.

(6) Reduced Campaign Finance Disparities. In the typical electoral campaign, a candidate’s ability to reach the voters with a message turns substantially on the size of the candidate’s campaign budget. This rewards candidates who are fortunate enough to have significant personal wealth, or who are able to spend substantial portions of their time raising money. Unfortunately, this process of fundraising often contaminates the candidates in the public’s view, for it suggests, rightly or wrongly, that the candidates may be trading their positions on the issues for campaign contributions. 

As candidates are forced to raise ever-increasing amounts of money, most of which is used to pay for expensive media, public cynicism toward the electoral process has increased. Ironically, the most successful candidates–typically those who have raised the most money–often arrive in office and labor there under the cloud of damaged credibility and public suspicion.

The Democracy Network, although still in its infancy, shows important signs of mitigating this phenomenon. Access by candidates to The Democracy Network is free and thus not dependent on money. For this reason, third-party and lesser-financed candidates can use it to reach the electorate, and statistically they have done so with somewhat higher frequency than better financed candidates. 

More importantly, The Democracy Network operates in a way that tends to diminish the disparities of money. In the typical television campaign, for example, candidates use their campaign monies to purchase media impressions–whether television, radio or direct mail. The larger the budget, the more media impressions that are purchased. A candidate raising ten times as much money as an opponent can buy ten times the media impressions; voters will see that candidate ten times more frequently.

In The Democracy Network, there is no reason why viewers will review the statements of wealthier candidates ten times more often than those of the under-financed candidates. Because the users determine their media impressions, not the candidates’ advertising budgets, The Democracy Network works to reduce the effects of large disparities in money.

(7) The Promise of Additional Benefits. The Democracy Network is still in its infancy, but it will see further testing in 1998. The Center will make The Democracy Network available to six states in 1998–elections in California, Florida, Illinois, New York, Texas and Florida–and possibly others. There are several additional benefits from The Democracy Network and similar technologies which are predicted:

The Internet and interactive Web Sites are still in their infancy. Early Democracy Network trials indicate, however, that candidates and voters will both use the system if it is available to them, promoted sufficiently and explained fully. 

In the 1996 Presidential elections in Santa Monica, 86% of all the candidates in the election–including all eight candidates for President and candidates for Congress, State Senate and Assembly, and local School Board and Rent Control Board–participated in the Democracy Network. In the 1997 Los Angeles municipal elections, 86% of all candidates used The Democracy Network in the primary election and 91% used it in the general election. Challengers used The Democracy Network at a slightly higher rate than incumbents, but incumbents still joined the digital debate at a rate of about 80%.

Voters appear willing to use the system. In the two weeks before the Santa Monica trial, The Democracy Network received over 116,000 "hits," a number which exceeded the total population of Santa Monica itself (about 100,000). More significantly, the average user examined 12 Web Site pages per visit, with the Issue Grid receiving the highest number of visits. In the 1997 Seattle municipal election, over 4,000 users visited the Site–a significant number in light of the winning margin of victory in two races (6,000 and 2,000 votes).

Technology itself cannot save democracy. That task in the end will be determined by the spirit and skills of the people themselves. But technology can provide the electorate with the ability to make improved decisions.

To be sure, interactive technologies also have disadvantages. They require users to seek out political information–instead of having radio, television or direct mail deliver it unsolicited into their homes. They are only accessible to the 20% of the American population with computers and modems. And they offer the potential for by-passing elected representatives altogether–allowing the electorate to exercise ultimate political control instantly via ballot initiatives, referenda and other forms of future "electronic direct democracy."

But the new interactive communications technologies offer significant hope for revitalizing American democracy. In a world of escalating campaign contributions, increasingly negative television commercials and growing cynicism toward candidates and government officials, new technologies can encourage broader issue discussions, greater specificity in candidate positions and positive messages over negative ones. New communications systems can begin to uncouple wealth from voter impressions, make candidate messages available in multiple formats and languages and encourage two-way communications–from candidate to candidate, from voter to candidate and from voter to voter.

To the extent democracy needs saving, the new generation of interactive digital communications technologies have arrived–just in time to help.
 

1. Tracy Westen is Founder and President of the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles, a non-profit organization which researches and proposes ways to improve the democratic processes of self-government. He is President of The Democracy Network (www.dnet.org), a new system of political communication using the World Wide Web. He is Founder and first Vice-President of The California Channel, the nation’s first state C-SPAN. He is co-author of ten books on campaign financing, ballot initiative, judicial and media reform. And he teaches communications law and policy at the USC-Annenberg School for Communication and the UCLA Law School.

2. Orlando, Florida (in an interactive video format on Time Warner’s digital cable news channel, The News Exchange), and Santa Monica, California, during the 1996 Presidential election; Los Angeles and Seattle during 1997 local mayoral and city council elections; and Los Angeles during a recent state assembly special election.

3. It allows users to review issue statements created by candidates on a wide range of issues and in a textual, audio or video format, examine candidate biographies and contact information, review the positions of proponents and opponents of ballot measures, volunteer to work on candidate campaigns, make campaign contributions to candidates, send candidate e-mail, fax or surface mail messages, post one’s own positions on a range of issues, talk with other voters about the campaign and review the election coverage of participating news media.