Living in the digital age has changed the way many Americans view politics. The internet has made it possible to connect to local and national politics without leaving the comfort of our homes. Surveys and questionnaires are answered through email and ballots are filled out online in a process known as digital democracy. Technology has raised the question of whether or not political representatives are even still necessary in our government. There are many advantages and disadvantages to digital democracy. Digital democracy would be advantageous because it is simpler, less expensive, and caters to younger citizens; but it is disadvantageous because it is potentially dangerous, may not reach all citizens, and creates skepticism among many voters.
There are several good things about digital democracy. The main advantage of digital democracy is that it creates a simpler process when it comes to accessing documents and information for public-sector agencies and citizens. For example, digital democracy allowed for the Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles to allow government records to be digitally signed, legally certified and delivered electronically by using Electronic Postmark technology in 2004. (citation) It is widely known that many Americans have heavy complaints about waiting in lines to take care of government business, particularly when it comes to the Department of Motor Vehicles. Digital democracy would eliminate this problem by allowing driver records and tickets to be taken care of online in the comfort of the citizen’s home. Another benefit of digital democracy is that is marginally less expensive than physical politics. Alabama Department of Conservation & Natural Resources, Wal-Mart and NIC developed an online hunting a...
... middle of paper ...
...e heard. Digital democracy also reaches more people. The option of voting online or allowing someone to voice their opinion over an online forum is beneficial to citizens who live out of town and would not be willing to vote by absentee ballot. In addition, the technological aspect also appeals to younger citizens who may not have previously cared for politics. Also, I think it is attractive to all citizens because it saves an immense amount of time and is extremely more convenient than having to attend public forums or standing in lines to vote. Lastly, I think it is inevitable that we incorporate politics with the digital age. So much of our lives are already incorporate with technology. It makes sense that our politics should join that incorporation as well. I realize that digital democracy has obvious disadvantages, but in this case, the good outweighs the bad.
The effects of new digital technologies and their policy implications result in a complex issue that is always evolving. “Change of State: Information, Policy, and Power” by Sandra Braman presents a breakdown of policy development for the constant evolution of the technological world and how it affects the state and society. She theorizes that the ‘information state’ is in the process of replacing the welfare state, to the detriment of the citizen and the democratic process. Braman “looks at the ways in which governments are deliberate, explicit, and consistent in their use of information policy to exercise power, exploring not only such familiar topics as intellectual property rights and privacy but also areas in which policy is highly effective but little understood,” (The MIT Press 2014). She argues that development of information policy cause transformation in the nature of governance, making the state more powerful and the citizen lose their rights, freedom and identity.
In Nicholas Carr’s article “How Social Media Is Ruining Politics”, Carr writes about the effects that social media has on politics. In his article, Carr focuses more on the negative effect that social media has when it comes to politics. Some points that he makes about social media include specific examples like the recent presidential campaigns, how other technological advances over the years have effected politics, and the effectiveness that social media has on politics
In this article Mary Kate Cary opens up with the supreme court decision to not restrict the use of corporate funds in political advertising so that she can make her point that big money ads are not the most effective way for candidates to reach American constituents. She argues that social media is a new way for politicians to connect with citizens. Her five claim are that Americans can now, choose the media they wish to consume, share the media they choose the share, like posts they agree with and dislike posts they do not agree with, connect with others on social media, and donate to candidate campaigns online. With these claims she comes to the conclusion that politicians want to go around mainstream media so that they can connect directly with the voters.
Digital democracy is closely linked with e-democracy, which is the idea of allowing people to use digital devices in order to cast their vote, which is said to have the potential to greatly increase electoral turnout by allowing some voters to vote using digital devices, which they wouldn’t have otherwise done with a traditional electoral system. However, it is important to understand that there is a severe danger of some sort of manipulations being done in order to influence the potential result of an election, through hacking or some sort of fraud. Overall, the idea of digital democracy will likely gain popularity with time as the ability of governments to provide secure ways of such e-voting to be
The Constitution gave our country a frame work in which we have built into a great nation. Their idea is that the purpose of our system, meaning our democracy, is to protect an individual’s liberty. William Hudson tries to convince us that there should be a connection between the government we have today and the government in other countries, Parliamentary System. In chapter 1 of the textbook, Democracy in Peril, starts off by giving the reader background knowledge of the found fathers, signers of the Declaration of Independence and the drafters of the Constitution, which reflect as “democracy models” or “protective democrats.” What the founding fathers did not want to happen is for there to be a corrupt government which ignored the rights
Many Americans are proud to live in a country that claims to be a democracy. They are enlightened to know that “the people” have the power to actively participate in the decision making process of the government. They constantly show pride and faith on the principles of democracy everywhere they go. Yet, there are many who also seem to disapprove of the process that others so claim to be the best form of rule of government.
The majority of Americans when asked what type of government their country practices, will answer with a strong and proud, “Democracy!” but the reality is vastly different. The Unites States is not strictly a democracy. Democracy as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary is, “a system of government in which all the people of a state or polity… are involved in making decisions about its affairs, typically by voting to elect representatives to a parliament or similar assembly,” (Oxford English Dictionary) and if you observe our practices including gerrymandering, the electoral college, the intentions of the founding fathers, our history of racism and discrimination, and a republic vs. a democracy, you will see that the U.S. is in fact, not
As this critical juncture begins to take place, there has been much debate between scholars as to whether we should be enthusiastic or wary of these new changes. In Digital Disconnect and in his lectures, McChesney observes both views in an attempt to advance the discussion. On one side, the celebrants are embracing the Internet as a medium that will change society for the better. In Digital Disconnect, McChesney says, “In sum, the celebrants reaffirm one of the most important original arguments from the 1990s, that the Internet will be a force for democracy and good worldwide, ending monopolies of information and centralized control over communication” (McChesney 8). In my opinion, this celebrant view should only be regarded as a best-case scenario because of the unexpected obstacles for society that can...
Howard, P. N., & Hussain, M. M. (2011). The role of digital media. Journal of Democracy, 22(3), 35-
Through Congress, citizens are given the ability to hold the power to control the structure of America. All in all, allowing them to determine policies and live in a country that believes in the power of democracy so their voices can be heard. The media generates the power that Congress holds, providing a communication forum that allows them to manipulate voting decisions. However, the progressing media technology, allowing easier access points for citizens voices to be heard, helps diminish some of the bias media that is being delivered through our television and radios. Other external and internal elements are also positively and negatively influencing Congress and the policies it creates. The congressional election allows the peoples voices to be heard, although unfair advantages for incumbencies are depriving the people from impacting the voting process and diminishing their given influence. Term-Limit policies
The researchers present findings that indicate that a politician’s popularity in the voting booth may be related to the frequency with which the candidate is talked about on social media. The researchers goes on to discuss how further research may conclude that social media has a bigger impact on voting outcomes than traditional forms of media, and how that could potentially shape the future of voting.
Turkle, Sherry. "Digital Nation." Interview. PBS. PBS, 22 Sept. 2009. Web. 20 May 2014. .
For example, in Saleem Kassim views, “As a result of the many technological advancements and innovations that have revolutionized how individuals communicate, an abundance of information has become available to everyone.” Saleem Kassim’s point is that anyone and everybody can put out information that can be seen by everyone when you are an internet user. For example, the news can tell you that there’s nothing happening in a certain country; whereas, someone from that country can post on twitter and upload videos showing anyone that decides to see the truth of what is really happening in their country. Kassim also states, “Ultimately, public information supplied by social networking websites has played an important role during modern-day activism, specifically as it pertains to the Arab Spring.” In other words, Kassim believes that digital communication has brought people together to fight for something that is a good cause. To have people aware of the truth and to have someone do something about it. Indeed it is highly likely that we bring people together for a good cause but digital communication can also cause a downside through having no censorship on what you post. When more people are brought up of current events trending they decide to hope on board to see if there is anything they can do to help. Not to mention, Graff and Birkenstein view it the same way. Like I mentioned earlier, Graff and
The Internet freedom provides capable and appropriately universally accessible tools to create a new platform to gather voice from the citizens. Habermas (1989) indicates that with greater access to information approaches greater improvement of the democratic process. For the reason, this opportunity could foster the democratic development. In addition, the result of Michael and Keegan’s (2005) study corroborates a significant correlation between Internet freedom of speech and a common indicator of a nation’s level of democratization. In this information age, the liberty of speech on Internet can break the monopoly of traditional mass media about the political issues. Also this is the guarantee of the development of democracy.
As the new digital era has risen so has a new way of voting; online voting. Even though online voting is more convenient, lower cost, and quicker it could also lead to hackers stealing an entire election or an entire part of the voting public left out. The vote and voice of those without access to computers, persons living in poverty or those without technology knowledge will be missed.