I have ignored, for the moment at least, the question of whether democracy is a fundamentally sound idea. Instead, in this article I've adopted the working assumption that democracy is the preferred form of government, and then described a method through which the fundamental principle of democracy (i.e., self-determination by the populace) can be more fully realized.

The Problem

Much of what's wrong with our government today can be traced directly to the role that money and other forms of power play in shaping the decisions of our elected representatives and their appointees. Many of our elected representatives view their positions as careers rather than as opportunities to serve their constituents, and so they devote a considerable portion of their energies and the resources we as taxpayers provide them to getting elected and then to continually being re-elected.

In this environment it is only natural that people and organizations with the capacity to substantially affect the outcome of elections can and do exert considerable influence over these representatives. What with the fact of power corrupting, and so forth, it is only natural, i.e., human nature, that all of this should be so.

Irrespective of the existence and extent of corruption and "undue influence", there is a more fundamental problem with representative democracy as it is currently practiced in this country, namely, the problem of communication. Quite simply:

• There is no practical means for the entire body of a representative's constituents to convey its views on all of the issues to the representative; consequently the representative is unable to adequately represent the views of his constituents. At best, he can guess what the majority of those constituents want based on the input he receives from a small but vocal minority.

• There is no practical vehicle through which constituents can learn the details and implications of all pending legislation and resolutions, and no practical means for them to learn how effectively their representatives have in fact represented them with respect to past bills and resolutions.

Until recently in our history, there has been no viable democratic alternative to representative democracy, and consequently no means to avoid the aforementioned flaws that are inherent in the representative democratic process.

But such is no longer the case. There is no longer a need for citizens to be "represented" in the process of shaping and installing the laws that govern our lives.

The Solution

Technology exists today that affords each citizen the opportunity to voice his opinion, and have it recorded and counted, on any particular issue. There is no longer any need for us to be represented when we, each of us, can register our own votes on any bill brought before us.

The technology that makes this possible is some combination of television, telephone and computer. Appendix A discusses how current technology can be used to support a direct democratic process. But it is important to remember that this technology is rapidly evolving -- becoming simultaneously more powerful, easier to use, and less expensive, on nearly a daily basis. So, while Appendix A discusses a technological solution available today at a cost ranging between $30 and $300, one can reasonably expect a better solution to be available within a few months at a cost between $15 and $150.

Obstacles To Direct Democracy

There are several obstacles to implementing direct democracy in this country: technological, social/psychological, economic, administrative, educational, and political.

• Technological Obstacles

  There really are no technological obstacles per se. Computers, telecommunication devices, and associated computer programs capable of successfully dealing with all aspects of the direct democratic process already exist, are well within the current state of the art, are widely available, and are relatively inexpensive. This includes the technology required both by the voter (briefly summarized in Appendix A), and that required at the "back end", i.e., to present the issues to be voted on, to collect the votes, to assure security and the integrity of the voting process, and to display the results.

  Some might raise the issue of security and integrity of the process as a technological issue. But this would be no greater an issue under a direct democratic process than it is under the current representative process. If anything, there would be fewer opportunities for fraud (not to mention corruption) under a direct democracy than there is now.

  
  

• Social/Psychological Obstacles

  There are several social and psychological obstacles to the success of direct democracy. Here are some of them. You, the reader, will, I'm sure, be able to think of others.

  • Discomfort With Computers

    Many people are not comfortable using computer equipment. There are at least three solutions to this problem: (a) use the television and telephone instead of computers, (b) experience, and (c) time.

    • Use The Telephone

      Anyone who is sufficiently uncomfortable with computers that he would not learn to use one as a tool in the political process (e.g., to vote), could use television to gain information about the issues, and then use the telephone to communicate his vote.

    • Experience

      People will become more comfortable with computers if they use them more often. Although a substantial minority of households presently have computers, most voting-age owners of such equipment do not use them at all, or use them only infrequently, and with trepidation. This is because there is no real need for a computer in most households. Outside of balancing a checkbook and writing an occasional letter, there's really nothing a person can do with a computer that's of much use around the house. However, if the nation's political process were manifest in and dependent on the household computer, many people who currently have no use for computers would force themselves to become sufficiently proficient that they could become valuable participants in the political process.

    • Time

      As time passes, the fraction of the population that is uncomfortable with computers will diminish. Within a relatively few years, all but a few Americans will have acclimated to the use of computers.

  • Resistance To Change

    Let's face it. Many people will not like the idea of direct democracy just because it's different. The easiest way to overcome this resistance is to enlist opinion leaders, namely television and movie stars, musicians athletes, religious leaders, and even an occasional statesman, to promote the notion of direct democracy.

    Can you picture it? Queen Latifah rapping out:

    Yo Yo Yo....
    People wanna put me dow-wown
    People wanna keep me qui-yet
    Not gonna let them keep me dow-wown
    Gonna raise my voice on the net
    Gonna make my vote on the net
    Gonna make my vote cow-wount
    Yo Yo Yo
    

  • Avoidance Of Personal Responsibility

    One of the benefits of representative democracy for many people is that it helps them disown responsibility for many of the products of the political process. It is, these people assert, their representatives in Congress (who, after all, are not doing what we want them to) that are to blame for the terrible things going on around us. In a directly democratic society, blame for apparent mistakes can be placed only at our own feet, not those of our then non-existent representatives.

  
  

• Economic Obstacles

  There are three primary economic obstacles to direct democracy:

  • The cost of placing the right kind of equipment in every household. This isn't very much, as suggested in Appendix A

  • The cost of establishing the organizational and administrative infrastructure that will make direct democracy work. Although these costs are substantial, they are also much less than the cost of the equivalent structures under the present representative democratic process.

  • The economic entities, mentioned above, with a vested interest in the status quo, which entities will strive mightily to thwart the establishment of direct democracy.
    • There are many organizations and individuals that derive income directly as a result of our representative form of democracy. These include pollsters, lobbyists, and political party organizations, among many others. This is, of course, in addition to our elected representatives and their thousands of staffers, campaign workers and other members of their entourage, all of whom would become unemployed and/or have their career paths destroyed in the event that direct democracy replaced representative democracy.

    • Even more important, however, are those that derive financial benefit indirectly as a result of our representative democracy, namely those who, by virtue of the money and/or popular votes that they control can and do exert undue influence over our elected representatives and their appointees. These include almost any person or organization with a great deal of money, e.g., the mafia, national business associations, Ross Perot, and large corporations, among others; and organizations that can deliver votes in large blocks, e.g., unions and religious organizations.

    • All of these entities will have much to lose if representative democracy is replaced with direct democracy, and will almost certainly exert considerable energy and resources in an attempt to block the establishment of direct democracy.

  
  

• Political Obstacles

  There are two principal political obstacles to the establishment of direct democracy:

  • The US Constitution, and various state and local constitutions or their equivalents, since establishing direct democracy would result in the elimination of the legislative branches at all levels of government.

  • The organizations and people with a vested interest in representative democracy, namely those that would lose income, power or influence if all Americans were truly enfranchised. (See Appendix C for a recent (4/16/97) example).

  An energized and demanding citizenry can overcome both of these obstacles.

  
  

• Administrative Obstacles

  Organizations, systems and processes must be created to implement and maintain a direct democracy. These would include such things as:

  • An organization responsible for maintaining the telecommunication hardware and software systems through which direct democracy has been implemented.

  • An organization to assure the integrity of the direct democratic process.

  • A process through which citizens can propose bills and have them made available for voting.

  • Organizations that analyze proposed bills, and provide the results of these analyses to citizens so that they can make informed decisions on the issues before them. (This is similar to the function presently performed by the Congressional Research Service, and the beginnings of things akin to this are already available on the internet, e.g., Vote Smart).

  • Organizations (similar, for example, to the General Accounting Office) that would monitor the implementation of laws by the executive branch of government.

  However complex and expensive such organizations, systems and processes might turn out to be, their complexity and cost would be substantially less than that of comparable structures associated with the present representative democratic process. Consider, for example, the billions of dollars consumed in federal, state and local government elections. And consider, for example, that the legislative branch of the federal government alone has an annual budget in excess of $3.1 billion.

  
  

• Educational Obstacles

  As is the case with representative democracy, direct democracy will yield best results if the citizenry is well informed. To address this need, detailed information on every issue to be voted on, prepared by the aforementioned analytic organizations, can be displayed on television and can be made available via computer/telecommunication devices.

  Of course, some citizens may elect to spend their time doing things other than reading about and voting on issues. One approach for dealing with this is synopsized in Appendix B.

In The Meantime

Alright, alright! It is not reasonable for us to expect Congress to pass a constitutional amendment to do away with Congress. At least not this year. So what can be done in the meantime, while the idea of eliminating Congress percolates to the top of our national consciousness.

Well, we can require Congress to keep us informed, and we can require that Congress wire us all up to a network through which we can keep them informed of our views on the issues.

Using current methods, there is no practical means for each citizen to communicate his views regarding each of the issues before Congress (even if he knew what those issues were) to his elected representatives, nor for each representative to effectively deal with (i.e., compile, analyze) the views of his constituents (even if they were made known to him).

Similarly, using current methods, there is no effective mechanism for representatives to query the majority of their constituents regarding the constituents' views on any particular issue. Recent cutbacks in Congressional staffs and mailing privileges as well as cutbacks at the state and local levels of government are exacerbating these problems.

With the information and communication technology available today it is practical to establish (or enhance) mechanisms for rectifying these problems. Most if not all of the components of a system capable of providing:

• constituents with adequate knowledge of the issues before Congress (e.g., Thomas, Vote Smart);

• citizens with knowledge of the formal actions their representatives have taken vis a vis those issues (e.g., Thomas)

• elected representatives with knowledge of their constituents' views on any issue (e.g., (Democracy Direct)

currently are operational and available on the internet. Unfortunately, two of the most important of these components -- the one that informs citizens about the significance and effects of pending legislation, and the one through which citizens can convey their opinions on issues to their representatives, are privately funded. Clearly, a matter so vital to the strength of our democracy should not be left to the vicissitudes of the marketplace. Informing the public about both the existence and significance of pending legislation is clearly a governmental function, as is the process through which representatives learn the views of their constituents.

Consequently, the federal government should make the establishment and enhancement of this electronic two-way communication system between the citizenry and its representatives a matter of the highest priority. Such a system could be one of the principal ingredients in an effective strategy to restore Americans' faith in their government. The public costs to implement such a system are relatively insignificant while the public benefits would be enormous.

  David Parrish
  Williams, Oregon
  July 4, 1995

---

Glossary

democracy

government by the people; rule by the ruled

democratic

of, belonging to, or upholding democracy

direct democracy

a democracy in which each citizen votes on each issue; as compared with representative democracy

govern

to exercise authority over; control, rule

governed

a person or group over which authority is exercised

government

the exercise of authority over an organization or group

governor

a person who governs

representative

composed of persons duly authorized to act and speak for others

representative democracy

a democratic government in which citizens' votes are exercised by their representatives

subject

under the authority or control of another

---

Appendix A

Existing Technology That Supports Direct Democracy

At the simplest level, television can be used to present information on any pending bills, and the telephone can be used as the vehicle through which citizens communicate their individual votes. This is being done now by network television which takes polls by posting a question on the TV screen and giving two telephone numbers to call, one if the viewer supports the question, another if he opposes it. The technology required to accomplish this is:

• A black and white television. Cost new: $40. Cost used: $10.

• A touch-tone telephone (a rotary phone would be sufficient to place the call that would register an opinion, but touch-tone would be required for the caller to enter his unique personal identifier). Cost new: $10. Cost used: $2.

• A telephone line. Typical cost: $10/month.

Of course, the vast majority of American households already have all of these required components, so the cost for the typical American household to implement this approach is $0.

With a little more investment, the process can be made more interactive through the use of computers and modems. This is being done already in a variety of ways, perhaps the most relevant of which is a service called Democracy Direct, which has been available via the internet for several months.

The technology required to accomplish this is:

• An inexpensive computer (e.g., the original IBM PC) or dumb terminal. Cost new: $150 (for a dumb terminal, $350 for a computer. Cost used: $20 for dumb terminal, $150 for a computer.

• A modem. A 2,400 bit per second (bps) modem would suffice for this application, but a 9,600 bps or faster modem would be preferable. Cost new: $50 (9,600bps or faster)/ $20 (2,400bps) ; Cost used:$30/$10.

• A telephone line. Typical cost: $10/month.

• A computer program that will permit the computer to conduct data communications via the modem. Cost: $0. (Computer programs capable of performing this function are in the public domain.)

Of course, as noted above, most households already have a telephone line. About one-third of American households now have computers at least as powerful as necessary to support the direct democracy function, and about half of these include modems. The cost for the majority of American households to acquire computer hardware and software necessary to accommodate the direct democracy function therefore ranges from about $30 (for a used modem and dumb terminal) to about $400 (for a new computer and modem).

And, of course, if a market suddenly appeared for modems and computers for the 60 million or so households that presently do not have them, the cost of this equipment would drop sharply and quickly.

It is, however, not necessary for every household to possess either the telephone/television or computer equipment discussed above in order to make direct democracy work. Public kiosks with all the necessary computer and telecommunications devices, similar to automatic teller machines, could be made available in malls, post offices, social security offices, schools and/or other public facilities to accommodate that small fraction of the population that has access neither to televisions/telephones nor computers/modems. And, of course, public touch-tone telephones capable of communicating citizens' votes are already widespread and could be used until the aforementioned kiosks were developed.

---

Appendix B

For People Who Have Other Things To Do

Some people have things to do other than keeping abreast of and voting on the many issues that must be dealt with in a direct democracy. A mechanism could be established using which such people could give their respective proxies to other people, e.g., "John Smith, rendering a vote on behalf of John Doe", who would act on their behalf.

In fact, one can envision a new class of true "representatives" emerging; i.e., people who make a profession out of exercising the direct democracy proxies of others. Such representatives might, for example, charge each of the people whose proxy he holds a nominal fee to vote on that person's behalf on one or more issues.

Under such a system, citizens could choose to have several different proxy-holders, one for each of several different categories of issues, or even for individual issues. For example, a citizen could give his proxy on defense issues to one person, and his proxy on environmental issues to another, while retaining his personal vote for all other issues or for a particular bill.

---

Appendix C

Here's a recent article by Jon Katz that places in clear relief the reaction of the politically powerful, even the nominally liberal politically powerful, to the notion of direct democracy.

Mr. and Mrs. Roberts' Neighborhood By Jon Katz http://www.hotwired.com [04/16/97]

Cokie Roberts and her husband Steven Roberts were alarmed recently to learn that between 250,000 and 350,000 people log on to the _Consumer Project on Technology_ Web site every day to monitor congressional activities in Washington. It did not strike the couple - one of Washington's most influential and visible - as cause to celebrate a new and participatory electronic democracy that could reconnect Americans with their civic lives.

Quite the contrary. The suggestion that the Internet offers citizens a new kind of ongoing electronic town meeting "makes our blood run cold," the two wrote in their nationally syndicated column last week.

To them, the ability of faraway citizens to register their views and concerns via email "sounds like no more deliberation, no more consideration of an issue over a long period of time, no more balancing of regional and ethnic interests, no more protection of minority views."

The founders of American democracy, wrote the Robertses, were clear in their advocacy of representative, as opposed to direct, democracy. They quoted federalist James Madison, who wrote, "The public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people will be more consonant to the public good than if announced by the people themselves convened for the purpose."

Fully three-quarters of the people surveyed, the Robertses noted, now favor putting national issues on ballots across the country. "Computers could make that possible," they wrote. "And, if we're not careful, they might." If politicians don't act quickly, they wrote, "Congress could eventually find its very existence threatened, thanks to the Internet. And that would make the current debate over pornography and cults seem like small potatoes."

This column is important and revealing on several levels. First, it proves the old adage that just because you're paranoid doesn't mean folks aren't really out to get you. Some of them are as arrogant and clueless as we think they are. They really do think they are smarter than everybody else. They really are trained to dismiss even the clearest expression of public will. The differences between old and new information cultures are profound.

The column serves as a window into the dark and disconnected heart of Washington journalism, a culture that fiercely defends its own freedom but has mixed feelings about everyone else's.

Cokie and Steven Roberts are Washington's first couple of journalism. She is the daughter of two former members of Congress, and is an NPR reporter; she also co-hosts, with Sam Donaldson, ABC's This Week. He is a former New York Times reporter and writer and editor for US News & World Report.

Both - but especially Cokie - have come to embody the ethical cloud and lack of moral clarity that seems to hang over Washington journalism as practiced at its highest and most famous levels. She has been criticized by certain media critics and organizations - American Journalism Review, the Chicago Tribune, and me, for instance - for accepting large speaking fees from organizations with interests in Washington, and for refusing to divulge her income from outside sources.

The couple embodies the power of the Washington press corps to set the national agenda and, in the best traditions of the "few-to-many" information model, tell the rest of us what's important. It is both a lucrative and powerful position.

What they are arguing for, of course, is not just the rights and power of elected officials, but the control reporters in that city have wielded for so many years. Call it "representative journalism."

Representative journalism has convened more than 1,400 accredited reporters to cover the White House (six handled the job during World War II). There are more journalists - estimates range from five to ten thousand - in Washington than any other place on the earth.

Washington reporters like the Robertses have learned to dismiss what their consumers think as irrelevant, even dangerous. Readers do not know what's good for them, as the Robertses' horror at the survey above clearly demonstrates. Only reporters and politicians, working together, can determine that. It's hard to imagine an interactive columnist on the Net or Web dismissing the overwhelming viewpoint of his or her readers so casually without having his eyebrows singed off, and deservedly.

Veteran pundits like David Broder and Haynes Johnson (who co-wrote the book The System last year) argued that journalism isn't functioning well in Washington. It doesn't advance understanding, promote resolution, or cover the intricate workings of politics and government. James Fallows was even more critical in Breaking the News, arguing that the media there is so destructive, confrontational, and remote that it actually undermines democracy.

The Internet challenges such journalistic concentrations of power, as well as those of many academics, educators, and politicians. It is the worst nightmare of people who are used to controlling the flow of information, and whose power, money, and influence directly derive from that power.

People like Cokie and Steven Roberts have long decided what stories would be covered and what information we'd get. The idea that hundreds of thousands of Americans would presume to do the same isn't a stirring idea to them, as the column demonstrates, but a terror discussed nonstop at Washington cocktail parties.

Sometimes such critics focus on pornography, sometimes on addiction or social isolation. But the bottom line is that the Internet reduces the power of journalists and increases the power and participation of individual citizens. If the Internet threatens the very existence of Congress, then what does it do to the lives and influence of the people who cover Congress?

That so profoundly democratic a medium, for all its many flaws, should be considered a threat to our system of government tells us how little modern media practitioners grasp about the values and intentions of the people who founded their profession.

At the time of the American Revolution, the free movement of ideas was permitted nowhere in the world; it was a radical, heretical idea that outraged clerics and monarchies. The ideas behind journalism and democratic government in America were crafted by intellectuals and patriots who saw diversity of opinion and the free flow of ideas as a cornerstone notion of their revolution.

Pamphleteers, publishers, farmers, wall-scratchers, poster-printers, merchants, individual citizens - those who were white and male, at least - were expected to participate freely in discussions of civic life. Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine - two close friends who shaped the values behind the world's first free press - never envisioned a corporatized journalistic enclave that filtered information for the rest of us.

In fact, Jefferson's writings reveal a proto-hacker. His most profound and eloquent wish for information was "That ideas should spread freely from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible all over space, without lessening their density at any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation."

As for Paine, he would run shrieking back to England at the very sight of Cokie Roberts. In The Rights of Man, perhaps the most powerful written argument for individual liberty, Paine argued that republic democracy was too serious and important a matter to be left alone to governments and ruling classes.

Political elites (Washington journalism comes smartly to mind) wrap their sophistry in pompous and alienating obscurity, wrote Paine, so that ordinary people would find the process too alienating and intimidating. That this is the very attitude so many Americans now feel toward their media and politics is both bitter irony and civic tragedy.

Paine's idea was to make political communications as simple and accessible as possible, not to leave it to insiders in Philadelphia, Washington, Paris, or London. "As it is my design to make those that can scarcely read understand," he write, "I shall therefore avoid every literary ornament and put it in language as plain as the alphabet."

The advance of worldwide democracy required the replacement of what Paine called the "vassalage of manners" with a revolution in communications as well as politics.

One of Paine's and Jefferson's big ideas was that democracy required the easy participation of everyone and that communications and language were as political as armies and legislatures.

Technology does pose troubling problems for government, politics, and media. It speeds up the pace at which stories are presented, replacing them with new ones before we can digest the old. It sometimes emphasizes visual imagery over substance. It can overwhelm us with more messages than we can absorb. It can easily be manipulated by those with particular agendas and sophisticated knowledge. It has yet to organize coherent, safe, and effective common meeting places. It currently is beyond the means of the poor.

These are all serious problems, urgently in need of addressing. But the Robertses neither address them nor even seem to want to solve them. They weren't calling for the technology of the Internet to be made available to everyone, but warning that it might be used by everyone to participate in democracy.

Nothing in the writings of Paine or Jefferson suggests that either would be anything but enthralled at the democratic and free nature of the Internet, the opportunity it provides for distant, disconnected, and ordinary citizens to make their voices heard in Washington and to monitor and participate in government activities.

The cheap and direct style of email is precisely the kind of new medium Paine dreamed about. And the digital culture transmits ideas in just the stirring way Jefferson envisioned.

It is nothing short of a miracle that 300,000 Americans would take the trouble to check into what Congress is doing each day, a rebirth of civics that should thrill politicians and journalists.

That two of America's leading journalists consider it dangerous suggests that the chasm between the old information culture and the new is both real and vast.

. . . .

by Jon Katz

---