Technology enables people to participate in politics in an unprecedented way. To see evidence of this, just look at the campaign fundraising of Barack Obama, who has raised his money from more people than ever, who mainly give in $100 increments. Yet, we are still electing presidents via the electoral college, which makes it possible for someone to be elected president, who does not have the majority of the popular vote. And, we regularly pass legislation with loads of pork spending buried in its excessively complicated pages. And, government bureaucrats are running inefficient programs that would be better handled organically by an engaged public.
We should be leveraging technology, to develop effective government programs and operations, in a similar way complex software applications are built by utilizing the free resources of the open source community. For instance, I’m sure that some functions of the United States Department of Education are worthwhile (financial aid), but does it really require $68 billion a year, to promote excellence in the system (and a system that is primarily a state and local responsibility)? The primary thrust of the department is to determine the legislative agenda, and promote and disseminate best approaches and ideas for teaching. Why are these functions not happening within a more efficient online ecosystem, and without a bureaucracy of 4,300 employees?
Technology also enables more direct and transparent governance. The people should be empowered to participate in law creation, for instance, where experts can debate and refine legislation in a manner not unlike wikipedia entries. And, legislative priorities should be determined by the people via a platform not unlike Digg.
Chris Saad calls this “citizen democracy.”
Tip O’Neal once said, “All politics is local.”
I tend to favor localized governance over federal governance. I believe that the needs of a very diverse population are better represented by a more responsive local government. In Iraq, for example, I believe the provinces should primarily hold power, which would reduce the conflict and power struggle between different regions and ethnic groups.
Also, there have been at least 26 different proposals to split California into two or three states. The different regions within California are incredibly diverse, and it doesn’t seem fair that California, with 38 million people, and the 7th largest economy in the world, has the same representation in the United States Senate as Vermont, a state with only 650,000 people!
However, I wonder how you can mitigate the risk of becoming extremely segregated by such things as race, and ideology, where extremism can propagate?
Ron Paul supporters, for instance, a group with a largely libertarian bent, have set up a community in west Texas called Paulville.
To what extent is it healthy that a majority group can exert its values over a minority group (supporting free trade, or human rights, for instance)?
There is also a trend towards regional and international governance: Look at the European Union, The World Trade Organization, The International Monetary Fund, The World Bank, NAFTA, and The United Nations, which promote dialogue and the free flow of ideas and goods, and economic development through creating efficiencies (reducing the number of currencies, allowing for specialization etc.), which also reduces the risk of conflict around the world.
So, a fundamental question relating to macro vs. micro governance is to what extent is politics defined by ideas vs. geography, and how do we define to what extend the needs of a minority group are sacrificed for the “greater good”?
And, how can technology be leveraged to facilitate dialogue and understanding, and lift up those in the minority who are disenfranchised?
