Friction: the force of Nature we all love to hate. It
restricts your gas mileage, gives you rug burns, wears away at all your beloved
possessions turning them to dust. And yet, friction is also the force which
makes it possible for us to move forward, instead of just spinning our wheels.
And nowhere is friction more of a two-edged sword than on
the internet. For example, just ask the folks at Penguin publishers, who recently pulled
out of a deal with OverDrive, electronic content distributor
to public libraries. Penguin cited as the reason for its pull-out its
concern over the lack of “friction” in the online e-book lending process. “From
the publisher viewpoint, this friction provides some measure of security.
Borrowing a print book from a library involves a nontrivial amount of personal
work....The online availability of e-books alters this friction calculation” according the the American Library Association.
So too, electronic voting alters the friction calculation in
democracy, by neutralizing the nontrivial amount of work which has historically
been involved in voting in an election (getting off your couch or out of your
cubicle, driving down to the polling station, waiting in line, signing in,
figuring out how to use the ballot, and getting back to work or home again).
Advocates of internet-enabled democracy (including us) see
this lubricating property of digital democracy as mostly a good thing. After all, America has had an
increasingly abysmal record of voter turnout over the years, reaching a nadir
of less than 50% in 1996. Low turnout effectively disenfranchises some
demographic groups, such as the young, the poor, and the disaffected, and correspondingly
super-powers groups which traditionally turn out in strong numbers, such as upper-class
and older voters and folks who feel they have something to lose, thus constricting the democratic process. And limited turnout
presents politicians with frequent opportunities to game the system by placing
on the ballot measures which will selectively draw their ‘base’ voters to the
polls, thus tilting the playing field to their advantage. All else being equal,
eliminating the friction involved in voting throws the doors of democracy wide
open, which has to be a good thing.
But there is more than one way to internet-enable voting…or,
at least, there is in theory; in practice, Americans Elect Corporation’s way is
the only game in town today. And therein lies the ‘rub’.
Americans Elect Corporation embraces what we call the
‘Click-Fest’ design for internet-enabled voting: presenting voters with an
almost infinite number of opportunities to click on something, leading up to
that one final click which represents their actual vote in the election. The
click-fest begins the moment a new member ‘joins’ Americans Elect. The new user
is presented with AECorp’s ‘True Colors’ survey, comprising hundreds of opinion
questions (which many have criticized as being excessively limited with respect
to the choice of answers offered, and some, including us, even feel represents
‘push-polling’ at its most insidious). We’re not exactly sure just how many
questions there are in the True Colors survey…our most intrepid member gave up
in exhaustion after answering over 300 questions, with no sign of reaching the
end. But by the time you’ve taken the True Colors survey your clicking finger
is well and truly limbered up for real
action to come…you’re now programmed to click on every sparkly Javascript
doo-dad in sight.
In the unlikely event that you are not yet, however, fully
programmed, Americans Elect Corporation goes even further, borrowing a page from
online gaming vendors, who in turn borrowed it from the work of trail-blazing
behavioral scientist B.F. Skinner: the more you click, the more ‘Badges’ you
earn. Click on enough True Colors survey answers, earn a ‘Matchmaker Gold’
badge. Click on the widgets to
share your love of Americans Elect Corporation via Facebook or Twitter and earn
a ‘Paul Revere’ badge. Click on the all-important ‘Give!’ link and earn a
‘Rockefeller’ badge. Click on the equally important ‘Invite Friends’ link and
earn an ‘Uncle Sam’ badge. Click! Click-click-click-click-click!
Click faster, you muppet! Think less!
Click more!
It doesn’t end there. In fact, it literally never ends. In the corporate web site’s mis-named
‘Debates’ section a member can click his approval or disapproval regarding
thousands of (mostly loony) questions which other members have been encouraged
to submit under the illusory guise of actually posing questions to candidates
(the questions, and their click-votes, actually end up in the bit-bucket,
ignored by the corporation).
Now it starts to get really insidious. In the ‘Candidates’
section – salted with the names and faces of hundreds of news-makers who are
not, in fact, AECorp candidates – members can click their “support” for as many ‘candidates’ as they wish – up
to and including all candidates. Vote
as often as you like. The more you click, the more empowered you feel.
Now things are really
clicking for Americans Elect Corporation. Its web designers know, as do all
successful internet marketers, that the links which are presented highest up on
the earliest pages of a web site are the links which will receive the most
clicks. It’s a law of human nature. And the click-meisters at AECorp use this
law to good advantage. In an unannounced re-design of the ‘Candidates’ section
last month, AECorp slipped the name and grinning visage of then 5th-place
candidate Buddy Roemer – AE’s only brand-name declared candidate and widely
rumored to be AE insiders’ Chosen One – at
the top of the first page of candidates. The fifth-place candidate, listed
in the first-place position. Who could possibly object to that?
You’ll click on him. You know you will. You can’t stop
yourself now, because 'all your click are belong
to us!' Never mind the fact that this
click is different…this click is your
vote for the next President of the United States. Just click it. Click it good. No friction. No worries. Come on…what's just
one more harmless little click, among the hundreds you’ve already clicked for us, hmm?
Maybe it's time to ask ourselves what internet-enabled democracy would look like if it was run by, say, the League of Women Voters, instead of by a slick billionaire's personal corporation? It might be just a little more frictioney, and a lot less like a bad game show. And maybe that would be a good thing.
Maybe it's time to ask ourselves what internet-enabled democracy would look like if it was run by, say, the League of Women Voters, instead of by a slick billionaire's personal corporation? It might be just a little more frictioney, and a lot less like a bad game show. And maybe that would be a good thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Join the debate. What's your take on this?