|
The interactivity of the world wide web is definately one of its most powerful features. Not only has it allowed candidates to raise extra money, coordinate volunteers, and spread news about campaigns, but it has also allowed voters to speak their mind about a variety of issues. Candidates have to be aware of their audience on the web, just as they do with other communication media, but in the case of the web, the audience can make their own statements just as loudly...and on a more equal playing field. Consider the cost of the web for the average user. Costs for homeowners using the internet range from 70 dollars a month for a high-speed DSL connection to no cost for some dialup Internet Service Providers (ISPs) like NetZero and others of their ilk. Moreover, there are free webhosting services and domain names are inexpensive. Anyone with an internet connection is capable of spreading mass amounts of information or rhetoric about anyone or anything. The election in 2000 is a prime example. There are a variety of sites that people publish on the web. Some of them parody or mock a candidate, some are pro-candidates, some are anti-other candidates and others are attempts at informational exchange. Regardless, all of these sites represent something that no other medium can represent with such effectiveness: the voter's voice. Consider: according to a recent poll only 7% of people use the world wide web as a major source of campaign information. However, 18% of the blacks in the survery used the web as a major source of campaign information (8). That is higher than any other racial category of people in the survey pool. The voter with a smallest public voice has used the most interactive medium the most. One logical conclusion would have to be that minorities have decided to take advantage of what is before them as the most powerful way for them to have a voice. This is a great example of how the web is not a uni-directional medium. Not only to candidates have to contend with who their audience is, but the candidates become the audience when opinions are voiced online. The web is not just a one-way forum -- everyone can take advantage of it. Voters generated some of their own controversy this year when they created the issue of "vote-swapping." Sites were set up on the web so that voters could log in and acknowledge that they would vote for Gore if someone in another state would vote for Nader, and vice versa. In this way, liberal voters could ensure that Nader would get a high national turnout and thus be eligible for more funding in his next campaign. At the same time, voters who changed votes to Gore would give Gore a better chance of winning in close states. So, the theory goes, both candidates would get what they need, and the country would not end up under the leadership of a Repbulican nominee. There are many sites devoted to vote-swapping; voteswap.com has linked to most of them, as well as to relavent news articles on the topic. The ethical issues are clear. Some would argue that ballot box stuffing is illegal, so why shouldn't vote swapping be as well? Trading votes could be considered a violation of the principles attached to the right to vote in the USA. Consider that in some areas it is illegal to be within so many number of feet of a person awaiting entrance into the voting booth. Some would ask why vote swapping should be allowed under these ideals. Others would claim that vote swapping is perfectly legitimate. People have a right to vote for as they please, and merely making a tacit agreement to vote for different people is hardly criminal. This is an issue that may become a larger, more important one, with potential legal consequences, in the future. The web also provided an entirely new solution to some old problems with voting. Electronic voting is an example of how instantaneous voting can be done from the comfort of one's own home or office without having to worry about the ballot box, making it easier for the voter to do his or her civic duty. There are, of course, enormous advantages and disadvatages... [ E- Voting ]
[ Home ] [ 1960 ] [ 2000 ] [ Comparison ] [ Timeline ] |
[