The quick-votes (a la CNN style; see CNN.com) are a quick and convenient way to gauge where public opinion lies on existing issues to help drive policy.
The idea is to be a decision-making aid for government. For example, suppose the President has a tough issue for which he must make a decision. He has various advisers tell him what what they know about the issue, the president himself will have his knowledge, his interests and the interests of his family in mind, and he will surely have the interests of the American people in mind. But what really IS the interest of the American people? Quick votes can be a way to obtain that and apply it to the decision making process. ie, it would be one more component the President can use to help make the right decision.
Because a quick vote is so quick and convenient, the president can have a quick vote put on-line and 24 hours later, after, say, hundreds of thousands of people have given their vote, have a significant reading on which side of the issue the public is on (even if the vote is close, that's important to know as well - the people are split on the issue). As word gets out, popularity would probably soar as the media puts links on websites and people see how easy it is to weigh in and participate in government.
Another application could be an "Issue of the day" just to continuously gauge the public's view on topics of the day. This could keep the public involved (both from a participatory and an observatory standpoint), and could become an important resource in guiding the creation of public policy.
Comments (7)
Without tools to ensure these 'quick questions' are also asked to those without access to internet (elderly, the most vulnerable and poor, --often those most concerned in fact) the Government would become a technology-dependent policy maker at risk of missing very basic input. They would have to compensate for this through a vast array of statistical tools that might make it clumsy in the end.
This sounds similar to http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/2557-4049 about an Online Citizen Participation Portal. I posted a comment there about creating a national electronic kiosk system. This would make it available to everyone, not just those with a computer.
Also, statistical analysis could be coded in, provided that we the people do not mind this system having access to basic data about us. As long as we have an open process for building and utilizing this system, that should not be an issue.
Granted, those without access to technology would not be able to participate in the quick vote. But that should not preclude it. That would be like saying the president should not be able to use an adviser because you and I don't get to have a say.
I don't want the internet quick vote to be confused with the constitutional right to vote. The quick vote another tool to tap into the collective knowledge and will of the people. It's still valuable even if everyone can't participate.
I agree with mechwvi above. Anything that has to do with the people giving their representatives feedback and/or direction about what they want their government to do must be equally available to those without access to their own computers.
If you want to say that this idea is just a next step, that is fine, and I understand where you are coming from. My support is for the full deal that includes our poorer off brothers and sisters, because the more citizens who vote and take a part in our democracy, the better off we all will be.
I want to address some concerns:
The keys here are quick and convenient and cheap. Because the quick vote is so cost effective and easy to create and tally, it can be used on a regular basis without much cost to the people, and deployed near-instantaneously to read the people with unprecedented regularity and scale. Thus the benefits could far outweigh the downsides.
This would be a use of modern technology the government QUICKLY and EASILY can take advantage of to become open to a large sector of the population with unprecedented speed. The speed at which these quick votes can be deployed would allow them to be used as frequently and often as issues themselves arise.
One of the concerns is access to all. One of Obama's stated goals was to give internet access to all in the far reaches and every corner of the country. As this happens, the internet quick vote will be available to more and more.
By the way, another argument may be that non-US citizens would have access. This could actually be a BENEFIT as foreign affairs are becoming increasingly important and letting ALL those that have an opinion weigh in. Foreign IP addressed can be tracked to sort which votes are coming from outside US borders.
Another argument is going to be voter fraud. Again, the quick vote is not intended to replace the constitutional right to vote, but rather to be a new informal tool to let the public weigh in. As long as we take efforts to minimize fraud, I would imagine the number of legitimate votes would far outweigh fraudulent ones, thus making the result significant and compelling.
Finally, if nothing else, perhaps the quick vote could be deployed on an experimental basis, where the public is allowed to weigh in but with the caveat that this is a new technology and more needs to be worked out. This could provide an opportunity for what could eventually become an extremely useful tool in the long run as the bugs are worked out.
This should be a non-binding, feel of the nation vote rather than an actual vote on a proposition. It should however have weight in the final decision. Beware the tyranny of the majority!
There would be a definite selection bias, though, so the results couldn't be counted on to be accurate. As long as the results weren't binding, it would be nice.