About Us | Publications | Mailing List | Initiatives | Donations

Tim Watts

"Spreading the Net: Point, Click and Vote"

The Age

February 19, 2000

When Bill Clinton was elected President in 1992, he didn't have a website. When he was re-elected in 1996, his campaign barely used the Internet. But in the current race for the White House, the World Wide Web has become a critical battlefield.

At the end of last year, it seemed to many that Republican outsider John McCain would be unable to mount a serious challenge to frontrunner George W. Bush, who raised $US69 million last year compared with McCain's $13.6 million. But through his website, www.mccain2000.com , McCain raised $US2.6 million from about 25,000 people in just eight days after his upset win over George W. Bush in the New Hampshire primary on 1 February. About 100,000 people have clicked a button on the website that asks for volunteers. And in December alone, the McCain 2000 website received 10.2 million hits.

With Federal Government matching funds included, McCain's website has raised more than $US7million - close to 30 per cent of his total. Indisputably, Internet donations have enabled his campaign to remain economically competitive with Bush.

Jesse Ventura, the Governor of Minnesota, says he would not have been elected without the Internet. If McCain wins the Republican nomination, he is likely to say the same thing. Yet Rick Davis, McCain's campaign manager, thinks the Net's biggest effect on politics is yet to come. "In the next race, the Net will dominate the campaign."

Gary Selnow, author of Electronic Whistlestops: The Impact of the Internet on American Politics, agrees. He thinks McCain, Bush, and the key Democrats, Al Gore and Bill Bradley, are primarily using the Web to deliver their messages. But "this bunch of candidates are yet to understand the full potential of the medium. None of the candidates are really using their websites to draw the voter into their campaigns. Their function is mainly advertising and fundraising. This is because they are products of the television era, which is a unidirectional medium. With the Internet, we now have a multidirectional medium, which allows the viewer to respond, to get a dialogue going, and to give feedback on specific issues and policy platforms. Imagine the power that would give you as a candidate: having inside information on what individual voters are thinking."

Selnow says Bradley is the only candidate with an organised feedback mechanism on his website. "Surely if anyone has a responsibility to listen to voters, it is candidates. I don't think this neglect is deliberate. For the most part it is ignorance."

One group that is not ignorant of the Net is the young. A 1999 survey by Project Vote Smart, a not-for-profit political information service, found that 72 per cent of Americans aged 18 to 25 trusted the Net as their primary source of political news. For all other age groups, television was the most common source.

A steady diet of political commercials and campaign spin-doctoring has made many Americans cynical of information from traditional media, says Adelaide Elm, of Project Vote Smart. The project's website, which provides a database on the voting records of all congressional representatives and the policy platforms of candidates in all federal and state elections, has been swamped during this campaign, she says. "Our whole democracy is based on the idea of an informed electorate. Any source of information which provides in-depth, trustworthy information on candidates must be valuable."

The Net may also change the nature of conventional politics, opening up more space to outsiders. At the moment the Internet is most valuable to politicians with little financial or organisational support, says Tora Bikson, senior scientist at the Californian policy research institute RAND and co-author of Sending Your Government a Message: Email Communication between Citizens and Government.

On the one hand, Bikson sees little evidence of any large political organisation sustaining an on-line community of supporters for more than a few months. On the other, "the low cost and high speed of Internet communication makes it a powerful tool for grassroots political organisers. We saw at the World Trade Organisation conference in Seattle last year how alliances of unions and environmental groups were formed using the Internet."

Not everyone is so enthusiastic. "The Internet troubles me," says Michael Dukakis, Democratic Party nominee in the 1988 presidential election. "I can see the advantages for candidates. It's a great way to communicate within your campaign organisation. But there is no substitute for grassroots campaigning, the old-fashioned knocking on doors and talking with voters face to face. There is no human connection like that on the Internet."

Dukakis concedes his opposition to Internet-based political activity may be generational. "I'm still computer illiterate. I do have friends who like it for the way it increases participation." One thing Dukakis adamantly opposes is voting on the Internet. On 11 March, the Arizona Democratic Party primary will be conducted on the Internet - the first legally binding public election on the Web. More than 40,000 registered Democrat voters will be issued PIN numbers to register their vote from their workplace, home or one of several Internet-connected polling stations throughout the state.

"I don't like it," says Dukakis. "There is something more to voting. Turning up in person and meeting your fellow citizens at the polling station is part of what it means to be in a community. If you don't have the energy to go out to cast your vote, there is something wrong."

"This move to Internet voting is premature," admits Selnow. "The democratic process is not ready for it. There is something very special about one person, one vote. We are yet to think through the implications of one person selling their PIN number to someone else. As well, only 56per cent of American households have access to the Internet. With Internet voting, some groups can vote more easily than others and that is controversial."

Joe Mohen, the chief executive of Election.com, the New York-based company with the contract to conduct the Arizona primary, disagrees. "The vast majority of American polling stations operate on a trust system at the moment. Often there is not cross-checking between stations. If you wanted to vote more than once, you could under the current paper ballot system. With our PIN number system, you can vote once only. We are eliminating duplicate voters for the first time."

Convenience for voters is another reason Mohen thinks web-based elections will be common within five years. "Internet voting is coming and the implications are profound. If turnout in Arizona goes up substantially, as we expect it to, that will be an important step for American democracy."

The US has been plagued by low voter turnout for years. In the 1950s and 1960s, turnout at presidential and congressional elections averaged about 60 per cent of eligible voters. That number fell to about 50 per cent in the 1990s. For younger voters the percentage is alarmingly low: less than 20 per cent of Americans aged 18 to 24 vote.

The widespread concern about low participation often sparks calls to make voting more convenient. When the resident of any large city can shop, bank, trade shares and even take out a home mortgage over the Net, many say virtual voting is a logical next step.

The trend Selnow is watching most closely is Internet politics from non-political organisations. "I was looking at a classical music website from the Midwest the other day and there was the news that the Government was cutting the funding of certain orchestras. It had space for comments and a direct link to the members of Congress. I've seen similar things on sites for owners of dogs and cats."

Selnow says this linking of hobbies, interests and passions with the political process is the Internet's most revolutionary function. "This greatly expands the base of politics. It may be the one great contribution of this medium to our democracy.