Michael Hardner

Our Revolution ?

2011-12-10T08:54:00.001-08:00

In 1960, Television arrived in the US as the medium of record for politics with the Nixon - Kennedy debate. This was the era of television controlled by only 3 networks, the era of the "fairness doctrine".

That doctrine had its roots in the 1930s, when the US government sought to check the political power of the corporations who held absolute power over the TV airwaves. By the 1980s, Cable News had arrived, and the era of deregulation was well under way. Ronald Regan vetoed an attempt to put that doctrine into law, and we arrived in the current era.

A spectrum of cable news channels convey news as entertainment, which is necessary to grab the attention of ever-shrinking television audiences. But something has been lost. Another aspect of the fairness doctrine - the idea that media serves the public interest - is all but forgotten today.

Neil Postman's "Amusing Ourselves to Death" described the news media of 1985 as Huxley's "Brave New World" - dazzling its citizens as democracy fell apart.

News as entertainment has pervaded our culture to the point where we have a generation that doesn't know anything different. Government policy is not as gripping as campaigns, personalities and gaffes are. But as government continues to grow, we are not served by the information sources we have today.

Electric media (television and radio) and government (based on print) have never had an easy relationship. They have been drifting apart each other for 50 years now. There is, however, a natural fit between the print-based western political tradition, and the internet. And politics on the web is still a printed-word based medium.

I continue to look for ways in which new media (such as the Sunlight Foundation) can shine a light on how we govern ourselves. McLuhan explained how new media can rip through old institutions quickly, and upend them. Certainly we have seen that at plan in the Arab Spring revolutions this year.

When will our revolution arrive, and what will be the nature of it ?

Is facebook a medium or is it content ?

2011-11-20T11:17:00.000-08:00

I'm rereading Understanding Media again. I last read it (for the 2nd or 3rd time) when the web was new. Something hit me in the first chapter that didn't mean as much to me last time: the content for any medium is other media.

The example McLuhan gives is that the content of the printed word is the written word, the content of the written word is speech, and the content of speech is thought.

So... what is facebook ? Medium or content ?

I came up with this so far: the content of the web is the internet, and the content of the internet is the written word and perhaps electronic communication along the lines of the telegraph.

So is facebook 'content' on the web, or is a new medium itself that contains the web ?

Government Complexity

2011-11-19T11:45:00.000-08:00

An idea from today:

"Maybe we need a new level of public stakeholder to deal with these problems. Civic volunteers who vote consistently, who are charged with informing themselves in detail about the activities of government - and by extension of business. "

They couldn't have anticipated how economies are managed today when they designed our system of democracy. Maybe we need something new ?

Is Open Gov Dying ?

2011-05-26T08:45:00.001-07:00

Distressing news about Open Gov stalling in the UK and US.

A BBC Article from May 16 says:

"The United States initiative, data.gov, set off with similar goals to those outlined by George Osborne today, but has now hit a few roadbumps.

Last month, its funding was slashed as part of the budget settlement between the White House and the House of Representatives, and its very survival appears to be under threat.

Even worse, the traffic figures appear to show that the US government's data transparency sites have failed to attract much interest from citizens - although the data community loves them."

I Complain with Kay

2011-02-21T11:14:00.000-08:00

Hello blog readers,

Today I have an audio blog from my dear friend K's "Complaining with K". I make general points around the need for open data around healthcare, but particularly telling is the trick (sorry K) I play on K where I ask her what she likes about Canadian Healthcare. Typically, she compares us to the US system inside of 25 seconds.

My point is this - we need to be able to discuss our system independently of theirs. Our system is different, and if we don't criticize what's wrong with our system, then it will deteriorate until only their system will be known as an alternative. So we're dooming ourselves to using the system that we always complain about, paradoxically. This is, to my mind, about how we discuss our problems.

Podcast: (I sucker punch K at around 3:43 or so... ;) )

Complaining with K

Open GOV in Canada, thanks to Canadian Civil Servants themselves ?

2011-01-31T09:44:00.001-08:00

Canadians continue to allow their institutions to operate above public scrutiny, even in this age of open data. Despite this new ray of hope, it seems to be commonly admitted now that Canadians are lagging behind.
From the Winnipeg Free Press:
OTTAWA - Civil servants are forging ahead with an open-data strategy for the federal government while politicians drag their heels on a formal policy.

A parliamentary committee has been studying the issue since last April and resumes debate this week, but documents obtained under Access to Information show that bureaucrats started drafting a plan in July.

Unlike the United States and Britain, Canada has no formal federal policy of making raw, taxpayer-funded data freely available to the public.

Civil servants have realized that needs to change.

At the July meeting to kick off the strategy, they drafted a five-point plan.

Interactive Media Elitism

2011-01-09T08:10:00.000-08:00

The mass media elite is slowly collapsing, as the individual cells (that is, us) that prop it up grow to broadcast our own points-of-view on the web, eroding their mass-media model.

Douglas Rushkoff says:

Projects like Wikipedia do not overthrow any elite at all, but merely replace one elite — in this case an academic one — with another: the interactive media elite...

Because our media IS interactive, our individual points-of-view can be collected and directed back at the mass media organs too - to meet them head-on and evoke a response.

I suggest that we start to do this first with our institutions: draw ourselves towards our government services first, to tie them closer to our community as we move forwards in this era of chaotic change.

Is Gov 2.0 Losing Steam ?

2010-12-13T15:40:00.000-08:00

Andrea Di Maio talks about the 5 necessary truths about Gov 2.0 in this article.

Also included is this downbeat note:

Also, a recent Gartner survey of government clients’ priorities for 2011 indicated a drop in rank for Government 2.0. Many governments are struggling with fundamental sustainability issues because of the global financial crisis and sluggish recovery, and there is a concrete risk that Government 2.0 might be put on the back burner.

Listen to my Podcast !

2010-11-25T11:53:00.000-08:00

Listen to my podcast, wherein David Shiner and I discuss media and democracy past and present.

Michael Hardner's Zeitgeist 2.0 on BlogTalkRadio

Is Ontario Privacy Commissioner Advocating Open Gov ?

2010-11-02T11:19:00.000-07:00

Privacy. The internet.

Scared ?

Old media especially loves to scare us about privacy and the internet. I suspect this strategy keeps a certain type of person from abandoning their television and newspaper and joining the rest of us online where information is interactive, not just served up as product for consumption.

In this context, the title "Ontario's Privacy Commissioner" sounds like someone who can reach through the monitor and handcuff those evil Nigerian prince scammers, who threaten to cheat our parents out of our inheritances.

But Ann Cavoukian showed up on my radar this week for some statements she made recently. These weren't statements about protecting our privacy, but rather providing us with open data from our public institutions. Her document "Access By Design" "The 7 Fundamental Principles" was released in May:

"The demand for government services continually increases, while governments constantly face the need for cost reduction measures. By embracing Access by Design, public institutions can improve their information management practices by eliminating the inefficient process of “reactive” disclosure, and yet provide more streamlined access to public information. Further, citizen groups can also utilize public data to spot inefficiencies in, and improvements for, government services – increasing efficiency by reducing demand on government resources."

She seems to get it. New media has the potential to provide the fabled "third way" for our healthcare systems: publishing performance data so that costs and services provided are easily monitored. The downside to governments, though, is that there is no hiding from open data, and our current Ontario government hasn't distinguished itself as being a risk taker in this area.

But, still, it seems like something is going on. Check this excerpt from the Cornwall Standard Freeholder, ostensibly about new limits on hospital lobbying:

"It will provide access to hospitals' general records, including records relating to operational and financial functions," said Ontario's information and privacy commissioner, Dr. Ann Cavoukian, in a news release."

I used to say "stay tuned" at the end of these pieces, but maybe I should say "keep hitting F5".

Even Government 2.0 is Bigger in Texas !

2010-10-18T13:59:00.000-07:00

Dustin Haisler is the assistant City Manager in Manor, Texas. In his article on GovFresh.com, he explains how he uses technology to:

post information (town website,open data)
collaborate (idea suggestion and brainstorming, discussion via social media)
collect information from citizens(crime reporting, reporting of needed repairs)
improve processes (publishing forms online)
improve other areas (project management, operations management, record retention)

None of these things is revolutionary, but just a matter of someone taking the time to do the little boring things that can add up to big successes.

Let's hope that Manor, Texas succeeds (as I think it will) and becomes a model for other governments to follow.

Online Voting Discussion

2010-09-21T08:04:00.000-07:00

O'Reilly interviews CA Secretary of State Debra Bowen, on the topic of online voting.

As California resident Ryan Alfred observed during Bowen's conversation with Tim O'Reilly, open source voting platforms sound great in theory -- but can technology increase the percentage of citizens who vote?

I object to the implicit message that getting more people to vote is virtuous. The act of voting is only the final steps, in the duties of a civic-minded person to stay informed and participate in our processes. Why aren't we paying more attention to how we communicate issues, from government to the people, and from the people to each other ?

Part of the problem is likely that communication analysis isn't natural. People seem to think that the way they communicate is the way they always have communicated and that our changing media (even as they change before our eyes) don't have an effect on the message. McLuhan taught us differently, though.

Information has been reduced to bytes in all media. If you doubt me, see if you can watch a television newscast from 20 or 30 years ago, and notice how long and information-rich the stories appear to be. That's television. On the web, we actually pay for our information on a byte-by-byte basis so shorter is always better. O RLY ? Yes, really.

The electoral process is always changed by changing communication practices, but there are things we (and they) can do to promote deeper consideration of issues, more even discussion. Turning the voting process into another internet online poll is not one of these changes, however.

We should be approaching the problem as writer Jane Jacobs approached traffic problems in big cities: challenge all assumptions, and don't assume that the most volume of throughput is the best answer. One way streets, and speed bumps regulate traffic, and prevent neighbourhoods from becoming freeway scenery. Small obstacles to voting, such as having to physically walk a few blocks to do it, may represent a small control on the quality of the voter.

It seems counter-intuitive but more isn't always better. Sometimes better is better.

Healthcare, IT and the US Veterans Administration

2010-08-25T11:01:00.000-07:00

Very weighty article from Andy Oram on the US Vetrans Administration approach to IT and Healthcare.

"The VA provides a model being adopted around the world -- Leading health care institutions in several countries, notably Jordan and Mexico, have implemented or are implementing VistA and its information-driven care model. It's happening in the U.S. too. Adoption is slow to start with because there are only a few small companies actively marketing VistA solutions (and they don't cooperate as well as they should). But the huge provider Kaiser Permanente interoperates with the VA and uses many of its techniques."

Gov 2.0 From the Left AND Right

2010-08-12T08:15:00.000-07:00

Nat Torkington on O'Reilly gives us a nice comparison of how two different views of politics will continue to reflect in Open Gov. To summarize: is it better services or doing more with less ?

The governments of Obama and Cameron have indicated different rationales for pursuing Government 2.0 but the goal is the same: open and responsive government, with a better connection to the people they are enlisted to serve.

Fioretti on Citizens in Open Government

2010-08-11T08:44:00.000-07:00

Summary of a talk given by Marco Fioretti in Santander, Spain.

Fioretti correctly points out that far fewer citizens are interested in being members of an active thinking 'public' than one of the television-supplied 'masses'.

You can download the full talk at mfioretti.com. The main points were:

Using computers doesn't automatically make services more efficient
In and by itself, using only Free/Open Source software on government computers gives no openness: you can build the perfect police state using ONLY “Free as in Freedom” software
Publishing data online does very little good if it doesn't come with the right laws and practices

and, above all:

the crucial role EU senior citizens may play in acceptance of Open Government is really overlooked
Open Government done right destroys many more white collar public jobs than the economic crisis: will people accept it once they realize the impact on what is the biggest employer in many states?
Open Data work only if many more citizens are both willing and able to process numbers than it is the case today

It's NOT Open Data After All !

2010-07-27T11:03:00.000-07:00

The zzzoot blog points out that 'open data' is not open and subject to 'terms of use'

While it is a great positive change that data is being released through numerous efforts around the world, data release is not the same as Open Data release. A number of Canadian cities have announced Open Data initiatives, but they are not releasing Open Data. They are just releasing data. Of course, this is better than not releasing data. But let's at least be honest ...

Interactive Journalism Tools ?

2010-07-19T09:45:00.000-07:00

As a devoted McLuhanite, one would think that I would be prevented from falling into the trap of rear view mirror thinking, right ? But the goblins of technology will mesmerize and trick you time and time again. Never think you're safe from being fooled.

How was I fooled this latest time ? Well, my thinking about the future of new media, and how it can be used as an engine to drive public discussion has always referred to text, video and images... because those bits of content have been the building blocks of expressing an idea for a long time now. On this blog and elsewhere I talk about stories versus graphs with explanations. Sometimes I have considered interactive graphs, but haven't considered rich interactive tools.

But this is no longer the case.

The Washington Post Article on Top Secrecy in America provides an interactive application, a scrollable map, search engine, articles and intro video on one page. Will such a website eventually replace what today we call the 'news story' ?

Interactive media are the grown-up descendant of video games, and great-great-grand child perhaps of toys. And they can express things in ways that static content can not: by allowing the user to enter a model of what is being described, rather than view a diagram, or read a description; by showing motion (of money, or information for example) ; by showing complicated relationships such as many-to-many relationships between entities. We saw this latter example in the recent UK Gov interactive application that showed relationships between political contributions and contracts.

The possibilities for a new model raise other questions: who will be the audience for such tools ? will such tools be able to provide long views of how the modeled entity (government, for example) operates or will these be one-off toys ?

Keep watching the skies.

Open Gov As Healthcare Consumer Tool

2010-07-16T08:37:00.000-07:00

From Tech President:

On a press call earlier this afternoon about launch of the Obama Administration's new HealthCare.gov, I asked HHS Chief Technology Officer Todd Park whether the country's major health care insurance companies are on board with releasing the specifics insurance plan prices that are slated to be added to the new site by October 2o1o, which is three months from now. With refreshing directness, Park responded, "We'll find out."

Government providing a tool to assess the market and assist consumers in getting the best deal possible regardless of what advertising says. I think it gives the consumer a new advantage, but is it too Soviet ?

News Reports NOT News Stories !

2010-07-05T12:20:00.000-07:00

Julie Starr on the Evolving Newsroom blog talks about the "tyranny of the 10 per cent".

She says "I wonder how much our perception of ‘the news’ would change if news stories as a whole were curated, packaged and distributed differently. "

News is designed to meet the requirements of those who consume that news. So it's understandable that a news meant for wide distribution can only provide a limited amount of depth to a mass audience. Luckily for Julie and for me, the channels for delivering news are evolving quickly, and the packaging and distribution is changing as well. So we have more options to look at in comparing said packages.

What new options do we have, or more interestingly what might we see over the next few years ? To answer that at a high level, look at how television changed when the number of channels increased. Television producers began to narrowcast into smaller niche segments, that demanded specific programming. Even if the low-quality shows persisted, there were more choices - including a new array of high quality programmes.

Today, the web is changing now news works. From the experience with television's narrowcasting, I expect the web should provide those of us who want higher quality news with a product geared to me. But, how will it be different ?

The answer to that question is revealed in what Julie wrote about a 'handful of stories'.

A story is a narrative arc with a beginning, middle, and end. Stories may offer us a moral, but they don't offer much to our real lives. They contain information, but they are not information of themselves. But they are popular. As a result, today's news is predominantly narrative, i.e. story-based. News stories are a necessary construct of a news market that meets the needs of the mass of consumers.

I am part of a growing segment of the public that wants more from the news, that wants information, without too many stories.

I don't care if the masses want their stories - crime, the misnamed "human interest" story, or celebrity gossip - in fact, I like those things as much as anyone. But I'm also a member of interested public who wants to consume something that filters out the noise. We need to get news 'reports', not news stories. There's nothing elitist about this, I just want a news product to help make sense of this world we're living in. Personally, I get enough stories in fiction. There is always a human element in a news report, but added personal perspectives on stories feel, too often, like filler to me.

Here's an example of how I would like to see my news packaged for me into a 'report':

If the government pledges to provide resources in order to found a program to create jobs, then a media outlet should provide the interested public with the information for that project from the outset: by providing the resources allocated, and the projected goals (eg. new jobs created) over a timeline.

A report can start giving us information from day 1, with updates given periodically just as happens with a well run project. That report can be a small narrative, with a few graphs - quite simple. At key milestones, we can evaluate whether the objectives are being met. The report can make use of the interactive aspects of new media as well, by existing on the web as a bookmarked link or an RSS feed without having to do it all in a few pages read one time through, as a story does. At any time during the project, the interested public will know from the report how it's progressing towards its objectives.

A news story on the same subject typically only happens a few times during the course of the project, and is be replete with political spin, and would undoubtedly feature the trappings of narrative: characters, conflicts, some dramatic images and the like meant to 'tart up' the information given in order to give it mass appeal. With a report, I can add the most of the analysis myself if I like.

If the media make a concerted effort made to frame and provide information - reports rather than stories - then intelligent members of the public will be drawn to those channels, and will better equipped to make decisions in an era of change. And hopefully the higher order news consumer will be drawn to such channels, and would bring attention to them.

Those of us who see the need for such a change now need to start talking about it now.

The Guardian UK Goes Diving...

2010-07-05T08:44:00.000-07:00

The Guardian UK tries a little deep diving, looking into underlying data on the success of medical procedures. As Dr. Ben Goldacre explains here, there are problems however let's celebrate that something new appears to be happening.

News sources are increasingly moving towards providing richly supported information that can be analyzed and discerned by intelligent, and presumably influential readers.

With the advent of point-to-point communications via the web, we once again have a 'public' versus the masses. And the public wants good information, not mass marketing.

A Hint at the coming Revolution

2010-06-30T09:51:00.000-07:00

In this article from Governing.com we get a hint at the next steps for application development and Open Government.

Bryan Sivak - Chief Technology Officer from Greater Portland - kindly points out:

"We don't tend to release a lot of information about how things work internally," he says. "Once we start to do that and start to get some of that information out there, and start to get interest from citizens and developers in how the internal processes of government can be shaped and changed, I think we can actually start to leverage a lot of value."

Of course, how willing are department heads going to be to let us know how things work 'internally' ? Or for that matter - mayors and counselors ?

Let's see.

Open Data in the UK

2010-06-29T10:00:00.000-07:00

Richard Poynder blogs about the movement in the UK in Free Our Data:For Democracy's Sake.

He also discusses the Messina Bridge and the Open Gov efforts of Dr. Marco Fioretti.

Interestingly, the European and Australian projects seem to me to mention budgets and citizens-watching-government more often than the American projects do.

In putting the transparency case to O'Reilly's Andy Oram, Fioretti cited the planned construction of the Strait of Messina Bridge (at an estimated cost of €6.1 billion). When the government announces how many tax dollars it plans to spend on a project like this, Fioretti asked, how can the public know that the costs are reasonable if it does not have access to all the data?

This is just an impression I have from a handful of articles, but I did notice that.

Australia's Gov 2.0 Taskforce report mashup Winner

2010-06-28T12:43:00.000-07:00

... is impressive !

Australian Senator Kate Lundy returned from Government 2.0 Expo 2010 and filed this report on her blog. Including this tidbit:

LobbyLens was the winner of the Gov 2.0 Taskforce report mashup competition. This comp was held on the ANU campus (which was great, ‘cos Canberra’s my home town and I was able to get along and see how things were shaping up….) It shines a spotlight in lobbying efforts in relation to decisions made by government.

http://mashupaustralia.org/mashups/lobbylens/

The LobbyLens network graph application is a step forward in Government 2.0 applications in that:
1) It is animated, colourful and fun to use
2) It shows data that empowers people to form opinions on their government, (i.e. by showing connections between business & government) not just to use killer apps that they have provided for you.
Unfortunately, it's a little unweildy but do check it out nonetheless.

“Social and technological change is pushing government into unchartered waters where it must behave differently.”

2010-06-24T13:00:00.000-07:00

Futuregov.net

Dr. David McClure - 'open data guru' - talks about the coming changes to government.

Getting government agencies to embrace open data is a big challenge, he said. “We love scorecards in the US government. We use them to create competition and boost transparency – we score agencies on their open government plans.”

This is revolutionary - creating competition without having an economic system to push it. Does anybody realize what is coming ?

The 3 Phases of Government 2.0

2010-06-22T07:30:00.001-07:00

Something like a history of the movement, as early as it still is...

Mark Drapeau

I've seen three phases in what most people would agree is "Government 2.0" -- a phase of surprise, a phase of experimentation, and a phase of solutions.

New Study on Open Government Data

2010-06-21T06:31:00.000-07:00

This one from Italy, interesting because it highlights the publication of government project information - costs and goals:

Several problems impelled Fioretti to propose this study:

Government claims are hard to verify. When the cost of the huge Strait of Messina Bridge project is announced, for instance, how can the public determine whether it's reasonable? (And why, I might add, do most projects experience cost overruns but none ever come in under budget?)
Marco Fioretti to study open government data in the EU

Gov 2.0 Hero Day !

2010-06-18T10:58:00.000-07:00

I missed it !

Gov 2.0 Hero Day is held annually on June 15 to celebrate citizens inside and outside government who go above and beyond the call of duty and creatively leverage technology to build a more open, transparent and collaborative democracy. These dedicated citizens are commonly referred to as Gov 2.0 Heroes.

June 15th -> From Luke Fretwell

Value proposition of open data : a framework for measuring success

2010-06-18T10:37:00.000-07:00

Laura Wesley gives a simple but convincing argument for open government in her blog.

This is part of govloop:

What's the story with GovLoop?
GovLoop was created in 2008 by one awesome fed with an idea. He thought there was a need for a social network for the government community to connect and share information. And thus, he created this website to foster this communication.(**Update**) Fast forward 18 months and what started out as a passion has grown to over 30,000 government innovators across the world. Steve moves full-time on GovLoop as President of GovLoop, a subsidiary of GovDelivery, a small company out of Minnesota.

Patriotism

2010-03-28T08:44:00.001-07:00

"Patriotism is the last refuge of advertising agency creative directors with American car industry clients"

Let's call It Government 1.9

2010-01-28T09:02:00.000-08:00

Those of you who know me know that I have dedicated much of my political blogging to the examination of how current technology (i.e. the web) continues to affect our politics. I have blogged about political divisiveness as a symptom of the technical landscape that we use for communications today. That landscape has, in the past generation or so, grown to include opinionated and biased mass-media pundits, supported by an immature and fractious political internet. Unfortunately the web has only become TV that yells back at you.

The natural uses for the web with politics have only just started to emerge, and they are starting to stir the political world very slightly: online fundraising, political blogs and videos are the leading edge of this change. The higher-order uses of the web for political discussion that I can envision, though, support productive and responsible political discussion on a personal level as well as for larger groups. A political web such as that more closely matches the media mix in place during the 18th century, when philosophers and pamphleteers published ideas and debates happened person to person.

Luckily for us, that immature and fractious web is constantly evolving, mellowing, refining itself, and blending into mainstream media At some point in our lifetimes, it will grow roots - real political institutions that will supplant television as the medium of choice for political communication. That will be a joyous day but although I can get a glimpse of that future of politics I haven't been able to see any way for us to get there until now.

Today - Shawn Micallef writes in Eye magazine about the start of the TTC Riders Union: http://www.eyeweekly.com/blog/post/82013

The TTC Riders Union is a brilliant idea because it contains all the touchstones of old media organization and could have existed as a protest group at any point in the last generation. But it is also a Facebook group that reaches across the technological divide to the larger citizenry. This model could mobilize groups that respond to old world and new world (or no world) technologies.

Better yet, the new-media aspects of this group will be able to provide a designated intellectual forum where principles, priorities and ideas can be executed efficiently. As such, it has the potential to solve problems not just for the TTC, but to serve as a model for other such action/discussion groups. As Mr. Micallef points out, the group itself needs to be
designed to be non-partisan and non-ideological, purposed towards promoting the general interests of TTC riders only.

So this is not Democracy 2.0, but perhaps Democracy 1.9. A little less technology based, and a little more people based. As such, we hope that this initiative gains hold of the public imagination.

Likes and Dislikes about the 2000s

2010-01-08T12:12:00.000-08:00

Things I liked about the 2000s: 1. Internet 2. New Foods & Drinks 3. TV Got Good 4. Music Great 5. Globalization - the better things about it 6. Environmental thinking went mainstream 7. Social Change continued - congrats to all engaged and married queers out there 8. Video Games - don't get them but something strange and wonderful is happeing there 9. Design & Art - guys, guys, you keep popping my eyes

Things not Liked about: 2000s 1. Movies sucked 2. Hard drug use pervaded society 3. Health and healthcare went downhill 4. Politics didn't get better 5. Spirituality has apparently left the public consciousness 6. Environmental damage continues

2009-11-11T07:56:00.001-08:00

I recently found a response to a Walrus magazine article I wrote a few years back.

This article motivated me to begin blogging, so I thought I would report my response here.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

In the September 2006 issue of Walrus magazine, Allan Gregg, wrote an article entitled 'How To Save Democracy'. As a renowned pollster (founder of Decima research, co-founder of The Strategic Counsel), I would expect Mr. Gregg to have a rich understanding of the Canadian mindset, and he doesn't disappoint there.

But unfortunately, the salvation he proposes negates the essence of the people he wishes it on.

Diagnosis and Cure

Allan Gregg begins with an assessment of the current political situation in Canada. Identifying and tagging our most obvious problems should be an easy task for a pollster, and he hits the biggest targets spot-on. “The core problem is that our cynicism cultivates further soil for more cynicism.” he writes. He describes the pitfalls in blaming politicians for cynicism, that doing so “distances the electorate even further from the system that was designed to protect and advance the citizen's needs."

The author points out public relations campaigns have had no real positive effect. He is also skeptical that electoral reforms such as proportional representation will achieve anything. But after showing a distaste for imposed, centrally-programmed solutions, Mr. Gregg goes on to propose solutions that run along the same lines.

His concept seems sound: politicians and the people are too far apart and the gap needs to be bridged. Perhaps if the people can see what our government, and our local MPs do for us, it will make government and civic participation more meaningful to us.

How can we make it happen ? Mr. Gregg suggests bringing politicians into closer contact with the voters, granting more access to the system, and making local representatives more influential. The suggested means of achieving these goals include compulsory voting, and “public sponsorship of festivals, reading series, debates and town-hall meetings” to encourage community.

But this is pure central programming and it would not receive any better response than the PR exercises he himself discounts. Let’s look at a recent example in Canadian politics to see why.

An Anti-Antidote

For a good anti-antidote to Mr. Gregg’s antidote, let’s consider the history of the Reform Party of Canada. Started by real communities of disaffected voters who worked within the system, believing it would make a difference in people’s lives, it was a model of a grassroots political movement. These people didn’t need to be taught the value of political action, or have the idea of community preached to them: they already had it.

So what happened to their movement ?

Fast forward twenty years or so and that party has become the Conservative Party of Canada. While still shiny and new, it is now very much a part of the Canadian political machine. Eastern Canadian voters certainly come to the new party as an alternative to the Liberals, but it is another political party now. It is no longer a movement for political reform.

And the chasm between the people and their leaders still exists after the arrival of the Reform/Alliance/Conservative party. In fact, it’s worse. This history illustrates the path that even a successful implementation of Mr. Gregg’s ideas would take.

The system as it is inevitably moves us to a division of the government and the governed, whether that government is big or small. In the end, the cynicism does not abate.

A Solution for Another Time

So why does Mr. Gregg fail to save democracy in the end ? It is because his solution attempts to solve the cynicism, which is a symptom of the problem, rather than working on the problem itself: an outdated political system that fits its people like a bad suit.

He gives himself away this fact himself with the sentence “we must make … changes aimed at elites as well as cultural changes aimed at the masses.” If Mr. Gregg truly thinks of the people of Canada as the masses, then can he really expect the ‘masses’ to behave as civically responsible individuals ?

This is his elemental error. Even as he realizes that we’re dealing with the masses, Allan Gregg reverts to a past ideal – a political system designed for a place, time and people that no longer exist.

The American founding fathers designed a system of government for a community, to be run by leaders (not by the masses) for the public good. The modern great-grandchild of that system gives every citizen can vote, where campaigns are run by remote control through pervasive electronic media. The mass public includes a majority who feel no obligation to civic duty beyond scanning the day’s headlines. They don’t even vote.

One can hope for change, but we shouldn’t waste our energies hoping for the impossible. No festival or reading program will cause ‘The Greatest Generation’ to reappear. That generation of civic minded, newspaper-reading individuals are gone, along with their dignified and revered political leaders. Who we are, how we do things, and how we see events have changed.

Mr. Gregg, in recognizing that we-the-people, are now we-the-masses should have followed through with that idea to a more appropriate solution. Although the mass public can’t expected to participate in the political process in the same way as the ‘public’ of the past, they can be useful in working towards positive change.

A more effective approach might be to leverage the distance between politicians and the mass public, rather than to try to bridge it. The mass public is disgusted with politicians that vie for their support but don’t solve our problems. One thing the Canadian mass public definitely wants in its government is good management.

If we could somehow crystallize roughly what the masses are looking for, and quantify a reasonably objective set of measures that help to define that ideal, we – the people – could set the political agenda. One could argue that the Reform push for deficit reduction in the 1990s was an example of the people demanding concrete and clear results. The Liberal government responded to pressure, making Reform and its grassroots supporters a significant agent of change in Canada.

Are there other ways in which we, the people, can get what we want from our politicians ?

Here’s a suggestion for a first step along those lines.

If there was a clear set of objective measures against which government performance can be measured that was generally agreed upon, there would be no place that a government or opposition could hide. The key would be for these metrics to be cross-partisan, clear and publicly accessible, like a score card.

For example, we have heard about hospital waiting lists to be growing, and hears every politician vow to lower them ? So how have they done against that goal ? Do you know ? Would you know where to look to find out ? Currently, when trying to form an opinion on such things, you have a choice between listening to superficial and contradictory arguments made on all sides (sometimes emotive, sometimes exhaustingly complex) or taking it upon yourself to do the research.

Is this a fit choice for the mass public ? Are either of these sources of information helpful to the masses ?

Without a clear source of information within reach, the public is shouted at by vested interests, drowning each other out with bullhorns full of contradictory facts and figures and deliberate misinformation. The majority gets confused, and checks out of the process.

Imagine how much more helpful it would be to see a box score such as the following in every daily newspaper:

This is only a rough example, and I don’t know much about designing charts, but wouldn’t adding such a table to our daily newspapers would put long-term thinking about health care squarely in the public mind ?

If I wanted to know the weather, movie times, or the ball scores, I would only have to pick up any local paper. Why aren’t long term medical statistics worthy of similar coverage ?

Faced with hard numbers above, fixed in the public mind, no politician would be able to hide behind rhetoric or exaggeration. The key indicators in the document, as discussed, would have to include measures agreed upon by a cross-partisan group: a clear, simple and report card.

The mass public needs to come up with better devices for making decisions. The key is for us to move forward is to recognize that we are a mass public, and to accept that political topography as a starting point. Simplifying the various debates, or giving all the information, or only the most sensational is no help at all.

We need start thinking about what the masses can do for us, rather than what we can do for the masses.

Letter to Metro Morning

2009-10-14T09:47:00.000-07:00

Re: The eHealth Scandal in Ontario

The project manager you interviewed on your show this morning said the words that have begged to be spoken on the matter of the recent eHealth scandal. To paraphrase - why did it take some minor over-billing by a consultant to alert the media to the waste of a billion dollars, and the failure of the government to deliver on eHealth ?

The fact is that media likes to go for the juicy story, and I realize that an overlong IT project doesn't qualify for that designation. However, CBC has always been good at leading its listeners to stories as well. I hope you continue to stay with this one.

The real story - the slow failure of the eHealth project - isn't the type of story that provokes immediate outrage, but still it has wasted huge amounts of money at a glacial pace. (How many Toronto pools could be kept open with $1B, how much medical equipment could be bought?) As such, it's vital to all of us that the media keep this story in the headlines by checking in periodically to make sure that this project is completed as promised.

If we're not planning to adopt the American model of for-profit healthcare (and I pray that we're not) then it's up to all of us to apply extra attention to matters of public healthcare, because no "invisible hand" will do it in our stead.

Michael Hardner

Democracy 3.0 Please

2009-07-01T12:00:00.000-07:00

This past Saturday June 27th the National Post glossed about the double-edged sword of 'Democracy 2.0' which apparently now means following politicians on twitters and making them your facebook buddy

So, now it seems that Democracy 2.0 has come to mean the automated tabloidization of public figures. This is as disheartening an event as the realization in the 1920s that the new medium of radio would best be suited to selling soap.

The web has the power to provide unlimited amounts of information instantaneously. It's capacity to provide useful data that can help guide our democracy is practically limitless. But this brain-busting volume of information will have to wait, as we apparently are more concerned with the minutiae of celebrity living.

This is especially ridiculous in Canada, where in all likelihood, our politicians are less interesting and glamorous than our personal friends.

Hopefully, an intelligent subculture will soon emerge and demand information with how our politicians are actually performing in their jobs. And today, more than ever, that means "how are they doing at providing the public with government services ?". Canadians still don't pay enough attention to the poor quality of services, and bad management practices by the government. The Ontario government has still not delivered on a promise to manage healthcare waiting lists made in 2003, but the mismanagement only made it to the headlines recently when a $2,700 a day consultant billed the province $1.65 for tea.

While the plebs of Democracy 2.0 delight themselves with Blackberry bus schedule updates, the rest of us will be waiting for the information that government really doesn't want to give up: statistics on their own performance.

Glances Backward... Steps Forward

2009-04-04T09:52:00.000-07:00

It's been almost one year now since the publication of the excellent "It's More Than Talk" report from Don Lenihan and Canada's Public Policy forum. That report described some provactive experiments in democracy with new media and explored new ways in which Canada could use technology to strengthen the ties between government and the people. So, in the wake of that report, how much has government changed in the last year ? Not very much at all. Not surprisingly, it continues to use a top-down method of governing - with real consultation limited to polling the public`s impresions of mass media press releases.

But the net continues.

It continues to burrow into the common culture. Inernet use, and online advertising expenditures increase as the economic climate seems now to be thinning the herd of the weaker old media offerings. In Toronto, a persistent activist new media movement is centered around improving transit service and making the TTC more responsive. And yet the effect of new media on our larger democracy seems non-existent.

The Public Policy forum has just realeased a new report "News & The Netizen", a disappointingly tepid examination of the current media climate. It ambles through descriptions of the participatory democracy offered by the internet with vague assertions that new media is changing politics - even suggesting that online political donations (which have been around for several elections now) and Obama's "Yes We Can" campaign are somehow significant events. The report circles around the issues, and the authors seem too unfamiliar with the potential of new media for change. In the end it offers the conclusion that "ongoing research and dialogue are warranted".

This is analogous to a frog being carried downstream on a lily pad, calling for ongoing research of the river. What we need now is not passive (and powerless) analysis of how the river is flowing, but ideas on how government should jump in - or at least some better examples. Then again, when interesting and thought provoking reports like "It's More Than Talk" haven't had an effect, then maybe watching the river is the only option.

One starts to wonder when and how the new media will finally take its proper place in our media mix. Radio and television arrived suddenly, so perhaps in the coming years the Net will do so as well. If such is the case, then we Netizens need to just watch, wait, and blog... documenting warning against the attendant problems of sudden change, while counting the small victories.

One such victory happened today, in Robert Fulford`s National Post column. In a rare blessing from an old media maven, Fulford declares that the "Net is way better" for journalism than pre-net days. He sees the value in increased communication between individuals. Hopefully, soon we'll all start to understand that online digital relationships are real relationships that can unite people across distances, and social standing. Netizens can help the nation see that the potential to plug these relationships into our governance will be put to good use.

So, let's keep riding the lily pad down the river, and continue our research and dialogue.

As such, I offer you Hardner`s 4 Imporations for Netizens:

1) Stay Online - keep blogging, keep posting on message boards, keep emailing the government, filling out `Contact Us` forms and letting them know that you exist in Cyberspace.

2) Practice Information Hygene. When posting and discussing, be sure to check your facts, and only use sources with an established record of accuracy and objectivity.

3) Be Proactive - Review the latest information from the source - unbiased studies, government statistics, universities, or independent surveys. Don`t wait for articles to appear on online newspaper or commentary sites first.

4) Look for chances to participate in wider dialogue, and jump in. If there is a chance to take the dialogue into the non-virtual world, then do it.

Democracy 2.0 Not Services 2.0

2009-03-26T20:13:00.000-07:00

eye magazine article

I was very glad to read Chris Bilton's informative, and well written article on Democracy 2.0.

But it occurred to me that "Democracy 2.0" has failed to live up to it's presumptuous title. The movement seems to be too focused on the delivery of government services, and not enough on dialogue and setting the agenda.

While we all would love to see government be more responsive, consumer-friendly etc. etc., we should remember that the movement [not] known as "Democracy 1.0" came from a group of disgruntled forefathers who wanted to provide a way for the people to govern themselves, not consume services.

Democracy 2.0 should be about finding ways to give the powers that be their marching orders. Instead of government telling us which hospitals in our area have the shortest waiting times, we should be using the web to measure our governments against their own promises of reducing these waiting times.

I have been posting and blogging about new media and government for almost 10 years now, and have come to accept that hardly anyone, including pundits, can see the importance of what is coming.

Our media institutions are showing their age, and web-based media is poised to step in and redefine how we govern ourselves. But for us to focus on better delivery of services and information is another example of the rear-view mirror phenomenon described by McLuhan.

Do yourself a favour and read "It's more than talk", headed up by Don Lenihan - Chair in Public Engagement at the Public Policy Forum. His paper offers some very exciting ideas of where new technology might take us.

Public Policy Forum

Michael Hardner

(Next - Democracy 3.0)

Media on Afghanistan

2009-03-22T11:44:00.000-07:00

The Globe & Mail profiled General Mohammed Daud Daud in this weekend's edition.

As I read the article, or the "story", I started to feel that we're falling into our old ways in dealing with Afghanistan. The US/Canada/NATO/Western approach of allowing damaged states to continue is pragmatic, and serves our interests in the short term but ultimately has failed in the past. Puppet governments, sympathetic strongmen, and deals with the devil may put a lid on a hot pot but the result is often a bigger mess to clean up later.

And reading the article, I saw that the journalistic device known as the "story" tends to encourage these arrangements.

Stories work best at times of crisis, such as Iraq's invasion of Kuwait or the 9/11 attacks. A "story" is not factual, it's a relevant narrative. As such, a story doesn't get the interest of the public until a situation reaches the breaking point. Unfortunately, we don't have any type of media yet that supports allowing the type of monitoring required - that gives a persistent and constant report of progress. We need a media package that allows the public to watch such situations, that are constantly move forward at a slow boil, over long periods of time.

Now, military affairs do necessitate a certain amount of secrecy, and I don't think that governments are obliged to reveal their their secrets. But they do need to communicate overall goals and to be honest with their people as to how they're achieving them.

And ultimately, if we are intervening in situations around the globe it is our responsibility to stay current on what is happening there, and to hold our governments to best practices moving forward.

Smirky YouTube Video Deserves Smirky Response

2009-01-09T21:12:00.000-08:00

Link

Re: The video "10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer"

Hi there.

I just wanted to post a note to say that I think this is a moronic and offensive video.

It's not offensive to my belief in God because I'm agnostic but offensive to my intelligence. It's very difficult for me, as an intelligent and thoughtful person to sit through a diatribe like yours without being able to speak back to the person who made it.

The first thing that strikes me is that you use the term "Christians" throughout your piece the way racists used to use "Orientals" or "Blacks" to describe a diverse group with one label. There are, of course, Christians who don't believe God participates in our daily lives, Christians who believe in evolution, and a whole range of other beliefs, but you put them all in the same box.

At the end, you offer the idea that 'god is imaginary' as some kind of cure to Christianity. So, are you saying that if God is imaginary then all Christianity is crap, and the teachings of Jesus therefore have no value ? And if 'god is imaginary' aren't other religions in trouble too ? The God/Jesus construction that you have put together here had a few screws left over when you were done.

For that matter, while your idea that "god is imaginary" may explain your silly canned questions, it doesn't explain a lot of other questions such as "where did the universe come from ?" and "what happens after you die ?". Those questions made humans consider whether there were gods and spirits in the first place. The idea that there's some huge force behind creation may or may not be rational, but it certainly is a natural idea to consider that as a possibility.

The question of what exists outside our universe is impossible to answer. And the idea that there's nothing at all seems unnatural to many people. It may, in fact, frighten them. If it helps them to think that a higher power exists, then isn't it good for them ? ( Why do people feel the need to evangelize their non-beliefs as much as others evangelize their beliefs ? )

Further to these natural questions and answers that cultures develop, it's also intuitive to believe that there was a supernatural personality behind creation, as many cultures seem to have developed the same myth independently. These cultures still have adherents who hold these belifs as part of their identity, and pass them on to their children. Are you going to make a video making fun of them ?

So here are some answers, to your ten questions - only 4 are needed.

Answers 1, 2, 6, 8

You seem to think that great minds through the ages didn't consider deep questions about faith such as "Why does God allow suffering ?". The answer is that God doesn't involve himself in the day-to-day workings of the universe. God gives humans the power of free choice, to make what they will from their lives.

Answers 3, 4, 5,

Duh. The bible is wrong. The bible was like the internet of the ancient world. So, does every post on the web make sense ? No.

Once again, I submit to you: Duh.

Answer 7

You ask "Why didn't Jesus leave evidence of his miracles ?" Uh ... What ? Evidence ? Are you expecing bones and crumbs from the 40 loaves/fishes ? What ? Huh ? Why would he ?

The author doesn't spend much time on this question, and only says "It's very strange isn't it ?". I guess he wanted ten questions not nine.

Answer 9

The 'Body of Christ'. What is it ? That's symbolic to most people, right ? Those who believe it's real, just believe magic is real. That's all.

Answer 10

Christians get divorced at the same rate as others. Do they, though ? If you say so, although you don't tell where you got that information. Since you are a "SMART PERSON" who "KNOWS HOW TO THINK CRITICALLY" I guess we should just believe everything you say just like some Christians believe the bible. But if you don't provide any more evidence than the bible does why are you any better ?

I wouldn't be surprised, though, Christians aren't any better at marriage than non Christians.

Why don't you make a video making fun of people who have been divorced next ?

Anyway, good for you for putting your beliefs into a video. It's just too bad that it's so crappy, smirking, and poorly thought through. Even if I believed in heaven and hell, which I don't, I would think this video would land you in hell. It's too lame.

Public Dialogue in Decline:Problems and Solutions

2008-06-15T11:13:00.000-07:00

Readers of my online posts and blog entries know that the dominant theme of my essays has long been the deterioration of our collective dialogue in society.

My feeling is that the ascendance of television as the dominant medium of discussion over the past forty years, and the deterioration of the printed press have created a situation where complex discussions can no longer happen properly in the public sphere. The problem has, to my mind, manifested itself in the alienation and disengagement that people feel with regards to government, their disenchantment with political figures and the declining participation rate in elections.

Although I haven't said so often, my hope has been that our emerging new media could somehow be leveraged to take a role in mediating discussion.

Recently, I discovered a group called the Public Policy Forum. The group was formed during the Mulroney government in the 1980s. Their purpose, according to their website: "The Public Policy Forum's mission is to strive for excellence in government - to serve as a neutral, independent forum for open dialogue on public policy, and to encourage reform in public sector management. Four key factors have distinguished the PPF as a unique organization on the Canadian landscape."

Public Policy Forum Website

Their website seems to contain a number of papers that submit remedies for problems that governments face today. The first paper I read "It's More Than Talk" is a fascinating plunge into the exciting realm of providing solutions using new media. This report was headed up by Don Lenihan - "provincal advisor on public engagement" and needs to be read cover to cover to appreciate the potential here.

I will be exploring this paper and the Public Policy Forum in greater depth in the coming weeks.

Read "It's More Than Talk" Here

Hail The Master of Stupidity !

2008-05-27T11:05:00.001-07:00

Imagine you're on the board of directors of a major corporation. There is an important decision before you that will require your vote. Advocates of various points of view with regards to this decision come into your board room and give video presentations to you and your fellow board members. Each presentation provides a different set of facts, requiring you to weigh the costs and benefits of each option.

Finally, the last presenter comes into the room and plays a video of a man speaking at a podium, but there is no sound. You raise your hand and point out to the presenter that you can't hear what is being said. "That's ok", he says, "You should be able to make your mind up based on the images alone."

Does this sound crazy ? Well, Rob Mitchell, former media advisor to Ontario Premier Mike Harris, comments in the Toronto Star today about the appointment of Guy Giorno to head up the office of the Prime Minster of Canada, effectively saying that such a practice is actually praiseworthy. In the column, Giorno is lauded for inventing something called the "hell-of-a-guy" event, wherein a television viewer could be expected to make his or her mind up about a piece of legislation simply by watching a politician on television with the sound turned off.

If you're puzzled by this thinking, perhaps you haven't noticed that ideas long ago took a back seat in political theatre. They're too unweidly, and difficult to get across in a few seconds of television news coverage, after all. And you can't be expected to read a long newspaper article to get the information, can you ?

So, to make your political choices you should simply take two or three seconds to survey a politician's posture, their clothing and the backdrop behind them and you will have all you need. That's how you choose soup isn't it - by the colour of the soup can ? As you can see, the spoonfeeding of the western public continues, to the detriment of all.

Just as the market for healthy snacks appears as a fraction of the overall snack market, the market for wholesome and context rich information appears to be miniscule and shrinking. CBS news, once proud to have the likes of Walter Cronkite deliver the information that made America think, is reportedly in talks to outsource news operations in CNN. Objective information is as unsexy as multivitamins.

These trends in political discourse and information management are disturbing because our democratic institutions depend on continued healthy dialogue in order to work properly. If the public isn't paying attention to facts, then facts won't drive the debate. Instead, we find the debate orbits around personalities, and dramatic pageant of the election campaign.

Even more disturbing than the decline of good fact-based discussion is the fact that the chattering classes do not seem to be concerned enough with things to comment on these trends, except for the usual, cynical throwing up of hands in futility. Or worse, we have the Rob Mitchells of the world celebrating the fact that a politician can be elected based, apparently, on a good shave and haircut.

The big questions in society are not being answered, and they will not be answered until the media either gives the general public the information to consider them, or gets out of the way.

I for one would like to hear candidates give their arguments for and against going to war, for and against a carbon tax, for and against globalization. I can get them some of these things from the web, but I shouldn't have to. It should be given through mainstream media to all of us voters. If 80% of my fellow citizens aren't interested in facts, then let them sit on the sidelines or change the chanel. I ask myself if they will ever vote in anything beyond a phone poll anyway.

If Patrick Henry were alive today, he might say "Give me information or give me death !"

Toronto Star article:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/431218

HillaryClinton.com And The Information Gap

2008-05-11T15:19:00.000-07:00

The campaign for President of the United States that's going on in America now is fascinating in several ways, but for me it's the most fascinating aspect is the way that the coverage continues the trend of presidential campaigns I've seen over my lifetime. That is, the focus of coverage continues to trend towards the story of the election contest itself, on the personalities involved, and superficial issues and away from the issues at hand.

You probably won't be surprised in my pointing this out, but the fact that this is a well known phenomenon doesn't make it less worthy of examination. In fact, the acceptance of this deterioration of idea-based political dialogue is itself a problem. I have always been interested in the writings of Neil Postman ("Amusing Ourselves to Death"). Postman regarded television campaign ads as a something of a dangerous placebo for actual political dialogue:

"Just as the television commercial empties itself of authentic product information so that it can do its psychological work, image politics empties itself of authentic political substance for the same reason." Neil Postman

Over the past few years, I have held out some hope that the world wide web could somehow guide us back to a 'Golden Age of Reason' somehow, and away from the expensive, expansive political sideshow that we're seeing today. With this hope in mind, I thought I would have a look at how one campaign is presenting information to voters over the web and see what I find. I picked candidate Hillary Clinton (at random), and decided to dive in and see whether HillaryClinton.com is presenting their candidate's ideas in a way so that I could make an informed choice, if I were a reasonably informed and involved American voter.

It's hard to get any hard information from the political world these days, even if one stays away from those television campaign ads. Cable television news seems to have discovered out that even smart people are more interested in strategy than in evaluating policies.

As such, if one candidate or another releases a new policy position, I hear the senior correspondents on CNN framing it in the context of the election race. Often times, the "smart" commentary, the political "insider" shows, are about the strategy decisions behind policy statements. For example, you might hear that "Mrs. Clinton is going after the middle class with this statement...". The sharpest political discussions I see on these channels tend to be about strategy for the contest itself, and the inherent drama rather than on the candidates' ideas.

That sort of coverage is easy to understand. The news business is about getting people to watch, read or hear what's being said, and it's at once more interesting, and easier to grasp when we discuss personalities and strategies than the deeper issues underneath policy discussions.

I wouldn't say that ideas aren't covered at all, that they're ignored, or that they're treated as not important, but I would say that it's difficult to find a dry discussion of policy these days. I find that the strategy around candidates' platforms gets more discussion than the ideas themselves, and so the validity of the ideas are subordinate to how they play with the electorate.

In a way, then, the political process seems to have become married to strategy, or more accurately strategic marketing, with the candidate as a packaged product. Again, to say that a candidate has ever been completely separated from their ideas would be ridiculous, and to quantify the degree to which ideas themselves are discussed is difficult. But it seems pretty clear to me we're not discussing ideas these days as much as we're talking about ideas and personalities in the context of the race.

The problem with that sort of political dialogue is that a healthy Democracy depends upon people choosing the "best" candidate, not the candidate that "speaks to them" or the candidate that they "identify with", or the candidate that returns the best focus group results. It seems to me that the last time America picked "the guy they'd rather have a beer with" was in 2000 and that didn't turn out so well.

These are my impressions, that there is less substantive discussion of policy than there has been in the past and I can't prove that. But if there are studies on this topic, please pass them on. As i said, my hope is that the information superhighway can give me me enough information on a candidate to make a decision.

So... let's see how HillaryClinton.com is presenting their candidate's ideas.:

The splash page and home page are no surprise: images of Mrs. Clinton draped in adoration and success, as they are with all candidates. There are calls for volunteers and support as with the other candidates.

Issues are on the toolbar after 'Hillary'. This makes sense, and candidates McCain and Obama have more or less the same priority on issues, after calls to action, and meeting the candidate. The #1 issue under issues is something called "Strengthening the Middle Class".

Hey ! That speaks to me... click.

Here we see first off:

Nine Discussion Points: These are all fairly general 'feel good points' summarized in a single sentence, linked to a full article. :

Five Specific / General Promises: I say specific / general because they're specific promises to do something specific about a general area.

"#4 is "Restore the Basic Bargain"
Restore the basic bargain. Hillary will restore the basic bargain that if Americans work hard and take responsibility, government will do its part to make sure they have the tools to get ahead."

Aha. We're in the right place now. These are ideas I need to evaluate to determine if Mrs. Clinton is the candidates for me. Let's see...

I click down on the first discussion point:

"Lowering taxes for middle class families."

Ok. PRESS RELEASES.

There is a paragraph describing her policy announcement from October 2007, made in Iowa, repetition of the 9 discussion points from the previous page...

I'm starting to get hungry for some facts and arguments now...

Ah... here we go. As we drill down, we get more numbers, and apparently more substance:

A section called 'The Challenges' lists factors which have impacted middle class families.

And... JACKPOT ! ... the facts behind "Restore the basic bargain"...

Including:

Implement the Save Our Homes Program.

"The Save Our Homes program would temporarily use Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the state housing finance agencies to help reduce foreclosures. The program would be in effect for 2 years. First, Hillary will temporarily increase Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s portfolio caps by 5% to give the companies approximately $70 billion in incremental mortgage purchasing capacity. With the caps lifted, the two companies will be directed to work with state housing agencies and private lenders to help at-risk homeowners replace their unworkable mortgages (mostly adjustable rate mortgages) with stable, fixed-rate loans.

For example, the companies would help lenders and state agencies set responsible underwriting standards for the new loans; and the companies would also purchase some of these loans for their portfolios.

Second, Hillary will temporarily modify the Mortgage Revenue Bond (MRB) program to help families refinance unworkable mortgages. Under the MRB, state housing finance agencies use the proceeds of tax-exempt bond issuances to provide low-cost mortgages to low- and moderate-income families. Hillary will modify the MRB program in two ways to address the foreclosure crisis: First, state agencies will be permitted to use MRBs to refinance mortgages (under current law, MRB
funds can only be used for original mortgages). And second, Hillary will increase the federal cap on the MRB program by roughly 25% to provide an additional $2.5 billion in refinancing capacity. Empowering the state housing agencies to refinance unworkable mortgages would enable them to help low- and moderate income people replace resetting ARMs with stable, fixed-rate loans."

HillaryClinton.com

If you understand that, congratulations. You must be a policy advisor for the Clinton campaign. Is the average American supposed to understand it ? Even if they did - there still isn't enough here for me to make a decision. There are no criteria for success, no projections of overall costs or results.

So how are people supposed to make informed decisions on issues this complex ? The answer is that they can't. The specifics of how government operates became too complex for anybody to discuss a long time ago. We're just supposed to trust people to make these decisions for us.

But at a certain point, there's not enough information available to make a decision in any way as to whether an idea is a good idea or not. There is either too much or too little information and we can't make a decision based on anything but how we feel about the candidate. So it seems that part of the problem is that the issues themselves are too complex.

Well, I set out to find out what information I could use to help guide my decision on voting for president, but I found either too little information to make a decision, or too much information to wade through.

This is what I call the information gap - too little information or too much.

It's not a new problem, but it's arguably the most important problem, since our democratic process and the attendant dialogue is what we use to solve all of the other problems we face.

How am I to make a decision on a candidate if it's impossible for me to get enough objective information on their ideas ? How am I to make a decision if I have to rely on proxies to interpret political platforms for me ?

I am writing on this topic to start a dialogue towards solutions. As our current media infrastructure faces stark challenges, it is up to us, the people, to demand good information from which we can make our decisions. If we are to have a democracy, we need good information in order to make good decisions.

Please forward me your ideas.