There seems to be a consensus emerging that California’s initiative process is broken. Access to the ballot is too easy (you need the signatures of 5% of the voters in the last gubernatorial election to get on the ballot). The initiative process is vulnerable to unreflective emotional appeals (initiatives dealing with children do particularly well). Many people blame the initiative process for initiating an era of ballot box budgeting where citizens appropriate public funds to specific policy areas through the initiative process. Proposition 98, passed in 1988, calls for 40% o the state’s budget to go towards education.
At the same time, California voters passed Proposition 13 in 1978 which reduces property taxes and significantly raises the bar on the legislature’s ability to raise new revenue. As a result of Proposition 13, the legislature requires 2/3ds of the California voters to agree on most tax increases. The result, some would argue, is a state that has no restrictions on spending, but serious limits on the ability to raise revenue.
It’s easy to fault an “ignorant” electorate who doesn’t understand the broader implications of increasing spending but lowering taxes. But recently I’ve been interested in the ideas of deliberation scholars like Diana Mutz and Cass Sunstien who argue the need for cross-cutting social networks in Democratic societies. Cross-cutting networks allow people to engage in discussions where they are able to vet ideas and develop a broader sense of the possible unintended consequences of their policy positions. The more we retreat to homogeneous ideological networks, the less likely we are to get this necessary check on our world view.
Sunstien argues that the Internet, particularly blogs and social networks, reinforce homogeneous groups that reinforce their pre-existing world view. As we move our public conversations to what Anthony Downs refers to as “sought for” mediums of information like political blogs, listserves, and Facebook groups, we get less of our information from:
“unchosen serendipitous, sometimes disliked encounters with diverse ideas and topics,” as well as “shared communications experiences that unify people across differences.” Public spaces such as city parks and sidewalks provide the “architecture of serendipity” that fosters chance encounters with a “teeming diversity” of ideas.
So let me throw out a preliminary discussion question: functioning deliberative democratic systems are more likely to occur in places with a vibrant “architecture of serendipity.” In other words, the key to a vibrant functioning California is more places where people of different political orientations can have “accidental” conversations about politics. Is our problem that the Interned allows up to retreat to our “warm corners of rectitude” where the correctness of our views can be mutually reinforced? If this is true, how to we encourage more “serendipitous” conversations about politics? Or should we just sit back and enjoy the polarization? How do we encourage “serendipity” online? StumbleUpon for everyone!
Discuss.
Comments 7
Kenneth M. Kambara — March 23, 2009
I think we need to step back and think about contexts. It seems like Sunstien is talking about affinity groups more than anything, which I could see tend towards insularity.
What happens when the Internet is used on more task-oriented projects or in policy-formation wikis? In F2F realms, I've seen cross-cutting dialogues on land use in watersheds based on consensus processes for a resource conservation district (RCD) recommendation. Landowners, residents, the military (Concord Naval Weapons Station), planners, environmentalists, etc., all chiming in.
I think about a meeting here where we're talking about issues of diversity. Should we have the "diverse" people talk amongst themselves about problems/issues, or should there be dialogues with administrators and decision-makers with the idea of formulating objectives, if needed. Seems like a no-brainer, but...
How to foster more cross-cutting dialogues using the Web. Is the answer a focus on task-orientation?
Samantha Frank — March 25, 2009
I agree, they key to straightening out the problem is to get peoples from all sides talking about the issues that affect them across the board. That does not, however, mean that you can't get a good feel for the other side by researching on the internet. The problem that you get from learning about the other political side on the internet is that the person who is researching will probably go to sites that share their same views, and may give them a biased view. If that biased view is believed then the internet has failed as a source for two political parties to learn about one another. For example, when my parents want to learn about a candidate and go online to research they first go to the website of the canidate that they wish to vote for and read information about the other canidate from there. The internet has made it far too easy to find information that has been jaded.
I think that a good start to getting political conversations going would be to hold discussions that would allow the public to come and talk about current economic and political issues. I do not think that letting things become more polarized is the way to go at all. It is already close to impossible to get anything done in this country, and if the democrats and republicans ideas become further and further apart they aren't going to want to compromise when it comes time to do so over policies. This will cause more problems. I also believe that when people get caught up in the radical of either side that they loose sight of what it was that they wanted in the first place, and they loose sight of what is best for everyone.
Alyssa Milne — March 25, 2009
I think some of the ideas of what we talked about in class yesterday were very good ideas of reforming the initiative process, but unfortunately people probably will not listen to them. It is very complicated, but there is a huge problem of budget deficit in a state that loves spending but hates new taxes. There should be more of a limit on what gets put on the ballot. Also, the idea of a 3/5 rule on spending is probably a better idea since there is a 2/3 rule on taxation and not many people agree to higher taxes. Something has to be done in order to balance out the budget issue.
Devin Conroy — March 25, 2009
I think that the government offers a good deal of information on the internet, one just has to be educated enough on how to use the internet and how to sort out uneducated postings. I agree with Sam, that people tend to look for information that supports their political ideologies. I do, however, feel that many people attempt to gain the most knowledge they can from the internet, given the sources they do look up, e.g. I looked up information on my favored candidate for this last presidential election on many different websites. I found information that praised him on certain aspects and other sites that completely hammered him on specific political decisions. I had biases of who I was going to choose before I looked at the websites. When looking at the websites, I found information that further educated me on the candidate and his accomplishments as well as his failures. I weighed the information that I had accumulated on the internet and made my decision. I feel that Serendipitous Conversations or discussions would be hard to come by on the internet. I feel that it is possible, but that people tend to find information that they are already aware of, or information that they are attempting to search out. We should not just sit back and let polarization occur, because we have enough problems between Republicans and Democrats as it is, let alone if they begin turning into Extreme Radicals. The Budget was already over-due this year by approximately 180 days, which further proves that our state is already headed into Polarization. Things will continue to get worse, so we must find a way to fix situations by compromising ideas and thoughts. People need to be a little less stubborn and vote and cooperate for the "Greater Good".
Ashlee Williams — March 25, 2009
With the internet, people can read both sides and since the moderate population is growing, maybe the increased volume of information will allow voters to decide, whether we should really raise taxes/spend money, independently. The friendly debates that might lead people to change their minds may occur in chat rooms or on message boards. Blogs, while informative, are often read by people who agree or are truly opposed. Most conversations that make people really stop and consider, are conversations with friends or family that have similar political views but differing views on a particular issue.
The biggest problem in the state currently is that people are still focused on their interest and not the greater good of the state. It is difficult to talk people out of supporting their cause, especially in this economic state, where not supporting your cause can easily cost you your job. While fixing the state problems does not have just one answer, for now, in my opinion it seems like we need to stop spending money for a while. Yes, it's disappointing when our roads,schools, etc need more money but with Prop. 13 and it being almost impossible to pass new taxes, there needs to be a compromise.
Corey Pingle — March 25, 2009
People like the initiative process andd yes everyone agrees that it needs to change somehow. It hasnt happened yet because no one can agree on how to change it. There has to be an initiative process to change the initiative process. It is very hard to raise revenue and yet irs really easy to lower taxes. It is very hard for a polarized society to decide upon how best the world can be. Its basicall which way is the good life. The internet plays a big role in how Californian's vote or even their role in the initiative process. It does solidify thier beliefs by only reading and talking to those of the same ideaological beliefs. Aristotle wanted people to talk and discuss and debate for a democracy to truly work. People must be informed and intelligent and knowing of their decisions.
Olaf — April 25, 2009
People would be exposed to oppositional views, initiative laws would be better written, and there would no longer be financial barriers to their placement on the ballot if an online communal drafting and signature gathering process was implemented.
The splintering of our perception, ideology, and purpose which the internet engenders could be overcome by providing places that are relevant because of their power.