TED Conversations

edward long

Association of Old Crows

TEDCRED 100+

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Easy to wield, powerful, influence on elected officials.

Is the following idea worth spreading?
My premise is that politicians feed on public sentiment. They go with the flow in their voracious quest for popularity/re-election.
Recent developments in online communication have made it possible for every citizen to easily participate in the creation of an accurate picture of public sentiment. Before this technology existed it was a small minority who bothered to contact their elected officials, and, as the squeaky wheel, they got the grease! Biased pollsters using manipulative techniques do not give an accurate representation to politicians.
We should use our computers to make easy, frequent expressions of our opinions directly to those who will vote to determine the outcome. The message should make clear what vote (yea or nay) is desired. It must also be stated that the message is from a voting constituent. I think it would exert real force on elected officials. I will write a closing statement, so make your comments easy to classify.

+1
Share:

Closing Statement from edward long

One thought is that the technology is not sufficiently advanced to guarantee an unbiased, tamper-free result.
Apathy, which can cause even the best idea to be stillborn, was mentioned as the real culprit in the disconnect between the people and the lawmakers. It was suggested that TED could grow to become a trusted way for elected officials to keep their finger on the pulse of America. The idea of "citizen lobbyists" was mentioned as a now-possible benefit of the internet. Some say the situation is doomed to continue as is with voters choosing bad leaders. Overall, if the idea has any merit it seems to be as an antidote to apathy. A simple way of telling elected officials exactly how you want them to vote on specific issues has some support.

progress indicator

  • Philip Crume

    • 0
    Jun 7 2012: We are a republic, not a democracy, so as to insulate ourselves from mob rule. Influencing elected officials with up/down polls doesn't tell them what specifically is wrong with a particular bill. There's also the danger of sampling bias where one group dominates the sample that isn't representative of the whole population.

    *Inserted a word correction
    • thumb

      edward long 100+

      • 0
      Jun 7 2012: Thanks for your input, Mr. Crume. Do you think the potential for "sampling bias" and the lack of exhaustive analysis of the subject issue are enough to make this idea unworthy of spreading? To be clear, I am not advocating a poll. I propose one-on-one, first-hand, direct communication from one constituent to their elected official. Yea or nay, sir?

      • Philip Crume

        • 0
        Jun 7 2012: Elected officials already have staff that perform that function. A large majority of the time, the official receives form letters from special interest groups, so all that ends up happening is they tally up yeas/nays. A smaller subset of the public are considered case management, which requires more extensive involvement. If people really want to influence their politicians, they should focus on building relationships witth support staff. They are the ones who do the lion's share of research, legislative drafting, who tell the politician how to vote, and what political alliances they need to form to engineer votes. Most people involved in the political process already know this.

        Sending staff a greater volume of public opinion will just decrease its value all that more. At the end of the day, politics is still a very old fashioned interpersonal relationship-based business. But also know that as part of that relationship, the politician wants to know that he/she can depend on you for his political survival, which means campaign donations in on and off-years. If a lot of people give donations, then larger donors won't have as much influence, and you'll end up with the down-to-earth political representative everyone dreams of having.
        • thumb

          edward long 100+

          • 0
          Jun 7 2012: I think we all know our letters and emails are not seen by anyone above junior staff level. But we also think those same underlings prepare a report which gets passed-up to those closer to the person of power. Eventually the homogenized, pasteurized, pre-digested information will reach the addressee. Anyway, I will record you as a "NO" regarding spreading this idea. Thank you!

  • Barry Palmer 50+

    • +1
    Jun 6 2012: I hope your idea catches on. If it does, I think its impact will be significant, but small.

    In my experience, most citizens are just too busy with their personal lives to pay much attention to politics. Also, the politicians and lobbyists are professionals that spend all of their time gaming the system. The passage of the first "Patriot Act" was a perfect example. Not one Senator read the act prior to its passage. The administration just rammed it through.

    If we are ever to have anything like true democracy it will take a cultural change. Children will have to be taught from a young age to stay involved in civic affairs. Fortunately, the internet now provides the tools to do this. Suppose children were taught to check government web sites to follow new bills, discuss them with their parents, and encourage their parents to email their representatives. This could be considered a weekly homework assignment.

    Of course, the representatives and lobbyists will get even better at gaming this system. But it would be a start.
    • thumb

      edward long 100+

      • 0
      Jun 6 2012: It is interesting that you are right on, I believe, that people are too busy with their personal lives to care about the very aspects of life which directly determine the overall quality of their personal lives, i.e. politics. Yuck! What a dirty word! Billions of dollars are made via social media while the idea of the internet as a political tool for voting citizens is largely ignored. We have the technology to act as our own lobbyist but we are mostly using it to amuse ourselves. I like your third paragraph. It would be great if TED served as an agent in the application of Technology toward social (political) improvement. Thank you, Mr. Palmer!
  • thumb

    peter lindsay 30+

    • 0
    Jun 4 2012: Perhaps as the TED community grows political leaders will start to monitor discussions to gain an understanding of the opinions of a large group of people who actually give some thought to the conclusions they draw.
    • thumb

      edward long 100+

      • 0
      Jun 4 2012: I agree TED is a resource of ever growing value for better-than-average public commentary regarding the zeitgeist. I doubt that the average politicial machine will ever be modified to actively monitor public opinion for purposes of determining impact on re-election. Such data needs to be spoon-fed directly from constituent to elected official, like a Citizen Lobbyist!. Thank you Mr. Lindsay!
  • thumb

    Josh S

    • 0
    Jun 3 2012: I think your idea has already spread =). People do use computers to let officials know their opinions on matters.
    Examples:
    Public outcry over laws prohibiting internet sharing a few months ago ( i forget the name of the bill), in this situation sites like wikipedia went down, and sites like google let its users know what was happening.
    Mass emails, sometimes spam, tells people and officials their views and try to persuade others.
    Websites are created in order to let officials know what the people think.

    Already we see the internet being used to send officials messages. Maybe their could be a more concrete way to let officials know what people want. Maybe every county/state could have their own websites just for its citizens to post and vote and give their opinions on what they want to be passed or not.
    • thumb

      edward long 100+

      • 0
      Jun 3 2012: Right on J.S.! Excellent suggestions. Citizen Lobbyists Will Rule! Thank you!
  • thumb

    Krisztián Pintér 200+

    • +1
    TED Translator
    Jun 3 2012: it does not make too much difference. people will still vote for debt, bombing foreign countries, increasing government interventions, isolationism, mercantilism and all these things.

    the main problem is not that politicians don't do what people want. the real problem is when they do.
    • thumb

      edward long 100+

      • 0
      Jun 3 2012: Voters do not vote for the issues you mention. Voters vote for the people who approve or disprove government actions. I think politicians will go whichever way the winds of voter sentiment are blowing. The current system is grievously under-utilizing the communications technology availiable to us. My idea is to inform politicians which way the winds are truly blowing. I disagree that what we have today in America is an accurate expression of the will of the majority of people. What we have today is an expression of special interest groups and individuals represented by very forceeful and persuasive lobbyists. My idea would chip away at that problem. We can all become Citizen Lobbyists! Thanks for your honest opinion Krisztian! I have edited my post to mention the importance of voting.
  • thumb

    Heather White 10+

    • 0
    Jun 3 2012: Yes, I agree. People complain about democracy, but fail to get involved - some don't even bother to vote. This devalues democracy and then people start thinking silly thoughts - like anarchys a better solution.
    • thumb

      edward long 100+

      • 0
      Jun 3 2012: Apathy is the problem to which my idea is addressed. By voting AND by telling politicians how we expect them to vote on given issues we can influence their decisions. Technology has advanced to the point where we can easily shoot-off a quick, clear message to our elected officials. I think it would change things for the better. We can all become Citizen Lobbyists! Thank you Ms. White for your helpful input.
Showing all 14 comments