Cyberspace, the final frontier. These are the voyages of the starship [American] enterprise and her candidates. Its four-year term: to invade strange new worlds, to seek out new alternative energies, to boldly go where no woman has gone before.”
The candidacy of Hillary Clinton is not the only adventure story these days. Though she may be sitting in the captain’s chair as she heads into our quadrennial beauty pageant, modern campaigns have always been about more than the candidates. Modern campaigns have all introduced new technologies.
William Jennings Bryan brought the railroad into politics.
Franklin Roosevelt gave us the radio.
John F. Kennedy became a TV star.
Howard Dean found a new source of campaign money on the Internet.
John Edwards used Jon Stewart, and John McCain used David Letterman.
Don’t forget Barack Obama introducing himself on You Tube, and creating Barack TV. What could be next?
Don’t forget Barack Obama introducing himself on You Tube, and creating Barack TV. What could be next?
Look for the Hillary machine to exploit the emerging technologies. Watch for the Democrats as they invade your space on MySpace. Watch for the “I am [going to win]” on your IM. Look for less Pay Pal and more less costly e-mail. For digital natives this is all expected. For some of us digital immigrants it looks more like science fiction. Cool!
The following was prominently displayed at a recent Google shareholder meeting: “It is not the strongest of the species that survive, nor the most intelligent, but the ones most responsive to change.”It was written by Charles Darwin.
Applied to our politics it would appear the fittest, the survivor will be the one candidate who best figures out how to use the new technologies.For political animals, that is nothing new.
Linked is a site, http://www.techpresident.com/, that links technology use by the candidates.
Linked is a site, http://www.techpresident.com/, that links technology use by the candidates.
Not surprisingly, Barack and Hillary lead the Democratic field, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tx.) leads the Republicans’ tech track. I never heard, of him. He’s 71!. I thought all MySpace users were like 17. I guess I better get on board.
(I posted this originally last year, but Barack still leads the Dems in both Facebook and MySpace friends. Ron Paul still leads for the Republicans, though his 67,000 MySpace friends is OMG, way behind BFF Barack -- 180,000 and counting.
10 comments:
Random tangent about a book I'm reading for school:
In A. John Simmons's Moral Principles and Political Obligation, he laments the state of American democracy. He suggests a possible model for a direct democracy in which all Americans can vote on their TVs every day (government subsidies to make this technology free for everyone) about the issues facing the country. No state or national legislature, just pure majority rule. Simmons wrote his book in the 70s (no internet) and I think the internet would make this much easier and cheaper. I think we should try it.
Correction: the book is Robert Paul Wolff's In Defense of Anarchism. Whoops!
Scholars have redefined Darwinism not as survival of the strongest and/or the smartest. Now it is adaptability, especially with globalization rushing with full speed. If Hillary can harness votes through the Ipod and cell phones--that just might boost her voter turnout. After all, the only way to appeal to the apathetic teenage generation is to show that one understands them. If you can't beat em, join em!
I have to agree that voting on a I-pod or cell phone would help increase voter turnout, especially with the younger generation. However, I must remind everyone thta not every single person in America has a cell phone or an I-pod. Most do, but we have to make sure that those that cannot afford these things do not become upset because politics is yet again favoring the wealthy, Just a thought.
The thing that jumps out at me is that it is always the Democrats that are using the new technologies first. Clinton, Bryan, Roosevelt, Kennedy, Dean, Edwards, Obama, -- all Democrats! Sure McCain can go on a talk show, but television isn’t a new technology.
Hmm… does this mean that it is the Democrats that are always the ones who are willing to use new ideas and innovative ways to look at problems and solve them with new approaches?
And wasn’t it Al Gore who invented the Internet? Just kidding.
Americans always whine about how they have to go to the polls and vote, and what a strain it is on their schedules. Oh, please! It takes ten insignificant minutes! However, I like the idea of voting on cell phones, iPods, and the like (in fact, I kicked the idea around in my head for a few minutes over the weekend). It would certainly lead to much more accurate vote counting (read: No more recounts!)
One concern of mine, though, is hacking the system. One candidate could have the election sabotaged in his or her favor, or someone could sabotage it, thinking they could help the candidate, or some third party could sabotage the election to affect our foreign policy. Mr. Putin, for example, might have someone hack the election database and readjust the votes in favor of a candidate who he could push around.
So a question for everyone else: Do the benefits outweigh the risks? I think they do, but what does everyone else think?
Nice touch of online lingo there, Mr. Wolak. Voting online, cellphones, Ipods are all efficient ways. And with more, there are more risks, more complexities everything. Look at our school for example. Voting online for our homecoming king and queen last year (or was it two years ago?) was strange and no one really knew what to do, nonetheless care. And for that reason, these technological advances to our elections should accompany the old fashion voting booth for those who don't have cellphones, iPods, and the internet. Then comes another problem. Voting booths, you count by hand (or those machines), taking much more time than the internet/iPod/cellphones, where the computer does it instantly. That time difference needs to be taken into consideration. And makes everything just so COMPLICATED. But as for homecoming votes, this year, most knew what to do, and there were flyers, facebook groups, etc reminding us. We need to slowly advance ourselves to more easier, cheaper ways so less people can make an excuses for not voting. Everything will be a little difficult the first time it's tried. Online ballots can be sabotaged, but so can "regular" ones too. We should try it, start it, and build up from there.
It seems that there is a general concensus that voting on iPods and cell phones would probably increase voter turnout. But something that I thought I'd throw out there is the integrity of voting itself. Voting is a huge deal, a power that gives so much authority to the individual. Doesn't the use of cell phones and iPods take away from the weight and integrity of voting--voting should be done to uphold citizen duty--not at convenience...what do you guys think?
I agree with you, Sahil. Voting is an activity of dedication and involvement, which requires genuine concern for the politics, the government, the nation, and the lives of citizens. Voting through the use of cell phones and iPods makes the voting process effortless, and such easy access to voting can attract indifferent population to vote mindlessly without the right attitude and purpose. The citizens' votes might not reflect true concern and seriousness any more.
That is true, Sahil. Voting is a huge deal and of course the integrity of it should be upheld. But I dont' think this nation has ever taken voting lightly because we know enough to realize that we will be stuck with whoever we elect for the next four or eight years. Plus all the requirements for voting still stand. It's not like it would anyone who has access to an iPod or the internet vote.
Post a Comment