techPresident announced it's "Politics and the Internet" timeline, a living archive tracking how technology has started to change politics, government and civic life in the United States, worldwide and online, from 1968 to present.
For anyone who spends most of their time online immersed on platforms like YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and the HuffingtonPost, the timeline shows how young these platforms really are. And for anyone in the thick of current fights over internet freedom, user rights, and online privacy, it shows how long those issues have been with us.
The course is structured around 12 modules, with special emphasis on the sources of popular power and public policies in the areas of urban planning and management, housing, environment and civic security.
1. Theoretical sources of participatory democracy.
2. Why the World Bank supports participatory budgeting?
3. From popular sovereignty to the exclusion of citizens’ participation.
4. Public Space: a critique of the concepts of exclusion and segregation.
5. The collapse of urban planning in the big cities.
6. The management of the commons, participatory democracy and capitalism.
7. Urban violence, social movements and citizens’ security.
8. Crisis of capitalism and inflection of the neoliberal project.
9. Capital-led direct democracy.
10. Social housing and mega-projects.
11. Progressive alternative to the 'new urban governance' approach.
12. The emergence of a new paradigm in urban policy.
Neblo, Michael, Kevin Esterling, Ryan Kennedy, David Lazer, and Anand Sokhey. "Who Wants to Deliberate - and Why?" HKS Faculty Research Working Paper Series RWP09-027, September 2009.
Interest in deliberative theories of democracy has grown tremendously among political theorists over the last twenty years. Many scholars in political behavior, however, are skeptical that it is a practically viable theory, even on its own terms.
They argue (inter alia) that most people dislike politics, and that deliberative initiatives would amount to a paternalistic imposition. Using two large, representative samples investigating people’s hypothetical willingness to deliberate and their actual behavior in response to a real invitation to deliberate with their member of Congress, we find:
1) that willingness to deliberate in the U.S. is much more widespread than expected; and
2) that it is precisely people who are less likely to participate in traditional partisan politics who are most interested in deliberative participation. They are attracted to such participation as a partial alternative to “politics as usual.”
Campaign and policy-related material on social networking sites plays a modest role in influencing most users’ views and political activities. Democrats and liberals are the most likely to say the sites have impact.
“I am delighted to join all of you on Twitter. Let's build Europe together! JMB.” This is the first tweet of the President of the European Commission, who after only two hours on the social site has already more than 5,800 followers.
This issue of the ePractice European Journal depicts, that much of the problems within governments to accept social media is also due to the sheer complexity of the huge range of public sector tasks; in addition to literally having to serve everybody in a transparent way, while also trying to reconcile highly contradictory demands.
Yet, governments should employ social media tools given the demonstrable benefits accrued, if done well, in addition to the fact that citizens, businesses and organisations increasingly use social media and have therefore begun demanding that governments use them as well.
PEP-NET will be a European network of all stakeholders active in the field of eParticipation.
In a series of webinars, four new prototype tools will be presented, followed by an evaluation of the tools in which participants can discuss further improvements and the potential impact of the tools on policy-making.
Based on material from the EU’s consultation on the Green Paper on Copyright in the Knowledge Economy, the participants will learn how to formalise and visualise arguments, how to estimate the effects of policy proposals with the help of policy modelling, and how opinions about arguments are assessed with the help of structured consultations.
The Internet offers anytime, anywhere opportunities for participation. Many people are excluded from viable public participation due to the time crunch of job and family obligations as well transportation or disability challenges.
Democratizes Access to Information -
Information may be searched, saved, and shared electronically. This can save trees or at least move printing costs to the end user from a government perspective. Ultimately, the local circle of “who is in the know” is expanded.
Personalized and On-Demand -
Online features allow for timely personalized notification or “tracking” of new information of specific interest. It allows “on-demand” access to text, audio, video, images and more. The difference between a concerned public and an outraged oppositional public often relates to the lack of timely awareness of information (not just technical, but buried access) about government proposals that directly impact people lives.
Social Media is Interactive -
From neighborhood e-mail discussion lists and local community blogs to Facebook, YouTube, and other forms many-to-many of “social networking” the Internet provides a dynamic place for people to use, discuss, correct, share, etc. the information they are increasingly accessing from government.
Mobility takes “anytime, anywhere” access to local information to the next level. From an elected official checking a community calendar to find an event to stop by to looking up quick fact at a community meeting, the ability to access to information as needed is what many people now expect.
Data Mash-ups -
As governments provide increasing amounts of public data for unrestricted use, governments and third parties can combine or “mash-up” this data to provide customized views for the public. Much of the information can be presented on a map or personalized based on local geography (a street address) which lends itself to highly personalized local democratic use.
This quick overview was taken from:
Sunshine 2.0 Guide Draft
The guide was drafted in real-time by Steven Clift,with E-Democracy.org, for the national League of Women Voters. It is based on this outline and these indicators. Further background on the effort is available. Feedback appreciated: firstname.lastname@example.org
TID+ stands for “Today I Decide +”. It is a software and a set of documentation that were developed in Estonia under a project co-financed by the European Union, under the eParticipation Preparatory Action.
And why not having a look at a Study on eVoting in Estonia as well:
"Internet voting in the March 2007 Parliamentary Elections in Estonia"