eDemocracy

Not the Obama Girl!

admin — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:31:00 GMT

The No. 10 website’s latest initiative – Number10TV - has been criticised by the press before it has even been re-launched. The basic premise is that it is a publicity stunt – designed to shore up Gordon Brown’s appeal rather than to engage citizens in any meaningful way.

Newsnight carried the story in its programme last night (I was a talking head – it can be downloaded via the previous link), suggesting that even when British politicians use new technologies, they don’t do as well as their American counterparts.

Is this true? Our ongoing research suggests not. While candidates in the US Presidential elections may have launched sophisticated online campaigns, there is little evidence that they will engage the public after the elections. They may seem more vibrant than their UK counterparts, but vast sums are spent (and raised) to make them so! And the media coverage of their online campaigns is – in the main – exceedingly positive.

This isn't the case when British politicians use new technologies to connect with their constituents. These go unnoticed by the media but in our evaluations of governmental and Parliamentary forms of online engagement, we note that the public responds well to initiatives taken by MPs, ministers and government officials so long as politicians do more than broadcast themselves online.

A clear picture emerges from our research; the public wants to engage with politicians; particularly, they want to participate in initiatives that tie in with policy processes and which deliver clear outcomes. Citizens – egged on by the media - may be momentarily seduced by publicity stunts, and may enjoy viral campaigns and political jokes but the future of online politics looks bleak unless some real progress is made in developing deliberative forms of engagement which ensure that their voice is heard and responded to in meaningful ways.

Laura Miller, Senior Researcher, eDemocracy.

l [dot] miller [at] hansard [dot] lse [dot] ac [dot] uk

Political blogging - just for the Opposition?

admin — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 09:36:00 GMT

A recent article in the Guardian reported that New Statesman co-owner Mike Danson has invested in LabourHome. His aim is to mobilise grass roots activism on the left which, until now, has not managed to gain the kind of online traction that popular rightwing/anti-establishment blogs such as Iain Dale, ConservativeHome and Guido Fawkes have achieved. Is this a new media specific problem? Are the left failing to get to grips with online technology? Is this about the Labour grassroots feeling that the party leadership aren’t listening so there is little point in blogging, or is it a more general lack of appetite for political campaigning amongst Labour activitists?

After three terms of a Labour government are leftwing bloggers suffering from ideological fatigue – is there anything more to say? If the Labour grassroots aren’t talking to themselves how can they begin to provide a coherent and united set of policies to present to the electorate in future elections?

Perhaps, the state of leftwing blogging is more to do with the current political context. Grassroots activity and the ability to listen to your core membership would seem to be much more crucial when a party is at a reforming and storming stage. At present, the Conservatives are a hive of activity, putting together policies with which to fight the next election. They sense their best chance of victory in a decade and it’s always easier to define what you are against than what you are for. Responding to, or being seen to sympathise with, public opinion is also easier in opposition as it doesn’t often require much more than words.

It will certainly be interesting to see what happens with rightwing blogs if there is a change of government at the next election. If this happens, will Labour activists step up their game, finally having something to rail against?

It would appear to be a lot easier to run a successful blog in opposition than when your party is in government. It is harder still when your party is an unpopular government. Talking up those in power doesn’t seem to be a successful recipe to attract readers, viewers or listeners.

If the blog is a tool most successfully used in opposition then it will be interesting to see what impact the injection of new capital, resources and energy into LabourHome has on its popularity and reach. It would appear to have an up-hill battle on its hands.

Beccy Allen, Researcher, eDemocracy Programme

e-Petitions planned for the House of Commons

admin — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 17:12:00 GMT

The Leader of the House of Commons, Rt Hon Harriet Harman MP has announced plans to develop a Parliamentary e-Petitions system. The popularity of the 10 Downing Street e-Petitions site highlights a public appetite for political participation, despite the fact that disengagement is increasingly becoming the norm. The Hansard Society has long argued that public disconnection stems from government's failure to develop suitable processes for participation.

To ensure that any attempts to engage the public via e-Petitions are effective, the Hansard Society has submitted evidence to the Procedure Committee of the House of Commons. The Committee's recommendations to government reflect our advice, proposing that MPs are involved from the outset in guiding the e-Petitions through Parliament and that signatories are informed of the progress of e-Petitions. It also suggests that ministers are called on to respond in most instances - and that the proposals contained within them should be forwarded to Select Committees for further deliberation, or debated within Westminster Hall.

The Hansard Society welcomes the government's response to the Procedure Committee's recommendations, viewing it as part of a gathering momentum towards engendering public participation - in many cases using online methods to increase access. The government's latest discussion paper on governance asks for responses to the question of how petitions and other participative mechanisms can enhance democratic engagement. We will continue to monitor the development of an e-Petitions system, alongside other forms of engagment and will advise Parliament and government as appropriate.

For more information please contact Laura Miller, Senior Researcher l[dot]miller[at]hansard[dot]lse[dot]ac[dot]uk

Blogging and freedom of expression

admin — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:22:00 GMT

Blogging has taken off as a low-cost way for individuals to publish online. It's not surprising then that politics and campaigning draws a large number of commentators - from the amateur observer, to the seasoned insider and the marginalised. The internet can help to level the playing field and it can be particularly powerful where oppressive regimes limit citizen's views to demonstrate and stifle a free opposition.

The potential for the internet is perhaps at its greatest in those countries that restrict press and broadcasting freedoms. It has become a medium for citizens to express opinions more openly.

The internet is a tool to communicate within a country and also to ensure that unfiltered alternatives to state-controlled media seep out beyond the borders. Political reformers in Zimbabwe have used the internet to raise global awareness of the electoral crisis, thereby increasing pressure on the government of Robert Mugabe and the ruling ZanuPF party. Whereas political websites there have been able to generate grassroots campaigns, in other countries, net activists have been subjected to a government-led backlash.

In these places, blogging is not without risk. As authoritarian regimes wake up to the power of the internet, they are increasingly likely to widen to net of censorship to include the online. In Iran, the power of political bloggers, who unlike the press had been able to criticise the regime, is being systematically eroded by the introduction of stringent laws that ban political websites. In future, it is feared that Iran's bloggers will face the same harsh penalties experienced by dissident journalists.

Even in countries where censorship is not routinely practiced, there have been attempts to regulate political communications during elections. Sometimes this appears to encroach on individual rights to freedom of expression. Where legislation has been introduced in an attempt to make elections fairer, the result can be a stifling of the local blogsphere.

Whilst South Korea's 2002 general election was largely decided on the internet, it has introduced legislation to curb negative campaigning. The result has been less internet-based election activity, despite world leading levels of broadband penetration. In Japan too, internet campaigning was banned in 2005 because it was thought to marginalise older voters - the very demographic that forms the core support for the ruling party. Candidates' websites were held in stasis during the elections there and breaches penalised.

Such measures may have restricted freedom of expression in Korea and Japan, but in New Zealand, citizen activism has not declined despite the introduction of the Electoral Finance Act 2007 to regulate political activity including the internet; indeed, bloggers have threatened to deliberately flout the law which they say impinges on their rights.

The internet is now a key tool in the fight for freedom, democracy and basic human rights. Last year, 36 bloggers were arrested for using the internet to organize civil society, expose corruption or human rights abuses or to criticize governments and politicians.

Karishma Desai
Intern, eDemocracy Programme
eDemocracy[@]hansard[.]lse[.]ac[.]uk

Since when did eGovernment need the Royal Mail?

admin — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 12:19:00 GMT

eGovernment is supposed to save us time (and them money). It is supposed to make things easier and more accessible for citizens. Well, that's the theory at least. The reality can be somewhat different.

I've moved, so decided to order a new drivers license. You can do this online via DirectGov. In theory it's a simple exercise. I have a digital passport (so no need for a new picture) and I have my Government Gateway User ID.

Good. Only trouble is I have no idea what my password is. Why would I. I never use it. I know the number (it's on the card) and I've tried every possible combination of every possible password I have ever used. Not working.

No worries, you can reset the password.

Well, you can.... But to do this, you have to provide information to confirm who you are: Name, date of birth and address. Not unreasonable but I'll come back to this.

You then answer three security questions set up months, even years, before. If you're like me these aren't something you're going to get right straight away. Eventually I narrowed down the options, an exercise in mental contortion in its own right. The system told me it would send me a new password. By post. To the address I entered. Hello! I don't live there anymore, do I! That's what I wanted to change in the first place.

Apart from being hugely frustrating for the user (me), this is also a really badly designed system. And not exactly secure either. Posting me a password to an old address is possibly the most stupid way you could do this, short of scribbling it on a beer mat and leaving it on the bar in some random pub.

And the point of this is? If we are to engage people online, get them transacting online, participating online and eager to come back and do it again (online), then the visitor experience must be a pleasant and successful one. Bluntly, it must be easier and more convenient than doing any other way: It must work for the user.

This is a classic example of a system designed on the inside, by the inside, for the inside. This paradigm died years ago and is even more inappropriate in a web environment.

If government is serious about working online then online needs to work.

Andy Williamson
Director, eDemocracy Programme
a[.]williamson[@]hansard[.]lse[.]ac[.]uk

Overcoming the ostrich approach to broadband

admin — Thu, 22 May 2008 14:05:00 GMT

Broadband is a critical delivery channel for effective eDemocracy. It's more than speed, it's about always on, ubiquitous access to the internet - when you want it, where you want it. Ofcom's latest statistics on broadband adoption show that rural areas are not only catching up with but inching ahead of the cities for the first time.

There are, however, only a few points to be pleased about in this data. Unlike Katie Allen in the Guardian, who claims that ‘fears of [a] digital divide are groundless', I would argue that this data demonstrates only too starkly that there is a significant digital deficit in this country and that, despite a lot of good intention and some excellent projects, it is not really improving. Broadband penetration in the countryside might be increasing but only insofar as it's reached the now-stalled levels in the cities. This isn't a great leap forwards, it's catch-up.

Using the Ofcom numbers (which I personally think are a little conservative), we're excluding over 40% of the population from digital participation. I'm ignoring the numbers on digital television as this only becomes a viable channel when it is fully interactive and most isn't. Go to Liverpool and the numbers swing around the other way, 60% of the population lacks broadband and it is even worse in Glasgow.

So what do Glasgow and Liverpool have in common? They're poor. Sunderland is lauded as bucking the trend, which is great. But is this an indicator of things to come or an exception to the rule? Most likely the latter where the efforts of some determined people in the community have led to a surge in broadband connectivity and usage.

Sunderland is no more than an isolated example but it does demonstrate that a grounded approach to broadband adoption works. To move beyond the current head-in-the-sand impasse, such strategies need to be implemented on a scale that targets many communities but in a way that each community is tackled at the grass roots. A national strategy with localised solutions is important because we become motivated to do something by those around us who we know and trust, not by slogans and campaigns.

Andy Williamson
Director, eDemocracy Programme
a[.]williamson[@]hansard[.]lse[.]ac[.]uk

Researching with Communities - new book published

admin — Fri, 09 May 2008 09:51:00 GMT

Hansard Society eDemocracy Director, Andy Williamson, launched a new book at the end of April called Researching with Communities: Grounded perspectives on engaging communities in research. It provides guidance, examples and discussions for researchers that are aiming to promote a community voice in their work. This book looks at the issues from an international perspective with chapters drawn from a range of disciplines including; community development, mental health, migration and refugees, and community technology. It draws on the experiences of researchers and community practitioners to explore what community based research means in a variety of settings and how it can be carried out meaningfully, respectfully and inclusively.

Could eDemocracy make the democratic deficit worse?

admin — Thu, 08 May 2008 15:18:00 GMT

It was entirely possible to engage in last week’s local government elections without being online. I’m not sure if the web was the icing on the cake or just another channel in the London Mayoral campaigns but it certainly played a part. Beyond London, the use was more muted, perhaps because local government is more about micro-campaigning and highly localised issues; on the ground counts more than online, for now at least.

The internet permeates all levels of national politics and it is becoming more prevalent within local government too. Councillors in Bath and North East Somerset are using Facebook to overcome the out-dated attitude of their council officers towards the online engagement. Many councillors now use email, the web and are blogging. Last week ICELE launched its new ‘blog-in-a-box’ toolkit to encourage the latter.

As someone working in eDemocracy, I view this gradual shift positively. However, I also retain a concern that, whilst politics moves further online, we seem to be doing little to close the gap between those with access to the internet and those without.

Internet access figures for the UK seem to be stalled at around 60%. Community ICT projects continue and are valuable but I know from my own research that what matters isn’t just being able to get to the internet – effective use requires a level of immediacy. There is a digital deficit in this country and it is caused by lack of money, lack of education, lack of skills to use the technology and a lack of motivation to engage.

How can we as eDemocracy advocates continue to push online engagement and choose to ignore this elephant in the corner of the room?

If we fail to incorporate strategies that enhance effective adoption then we are complicit in perpetuating the digital deficit. Worse still, we risk extending, not closing, the democratic deficit when we push for more online engagement without at the same time working to get more people online.

Andy Williamson
Director, eDemocracy Programme
a[.]williamson[@]hansard[.]lse[.]ac[.]uk

From government online to opposition online

admin — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 14:29:00 GMT

There are a few studies now that look at how MPs are using the web. We're starting to build up a picture of how this is changing over time - from some of the garish early attempts to the slick template-driven virtual companion now seemingly de rigueur with Members. In the UK, however, there's one online phenomenon we've yet to see.

The rise in digital parliamentarians has occurred with no change in power and the same parties remaining in opposition. We are yet to see what effect (if any) switching from one side of the debating chamber to the other has on how MPs use their websites.

In Canada, where the ruling Liberals were turned out into opposition, anecdotally it would look like their web-efforts have stalled. Do political websites suffer the same post-defeat malaise as the physical party? Or is this just a localised event? Interesting too that, according to a Canadian colleague, members of the now ruling Conservatives seems to have ramped up their online activities. Again, is this a co-incidence or an effect of the new found confidence that electoral success brings?

We've got another chance to see whether this pattern is repeatable, this time in Australia. A rout of the Liberal-led Coalition at the last election saw them decimated and the Australian Labor Party in the unfamiliar position of governing. It's perhaps a little early to tell what impact this might have on how and how well individual MPs and Senators use the internet but there are clearly some change already taking place. The now-opposition spokesman on the environment suggests that the internet can be used to demonstrate that the Coalition is serious about issues such as climate change. The Sydney Morning Herald reports Liberal-party sources as recognising that the, 'Coalition "failed abysmally" to fully recognise the importance of the internet during the 2007 federal election campaign, and that John Howard's stilted YouTube appearances did more harm than good.' Strategies are now being developed to change this, including a new Liberals online forum to be launched soon. The model for this online revival, David Cameron's website, of course!

There's one other category of politician who haven't really been covered in the research so far but for whom the internet seems to be playing an increasingly important role. This is the prospective parliamentary candidate hoping to dislodge the incumbent MP. There's evidence that many prospective candidates are turning to the web not just to promote but also to marshal willing bands of door-knockers and leaflet deliverers in their patch via social networking sites. This is an interesting point because, as Lord Norton noted in a recent journal article*, the incumbent MPs appears to have a distinct advantage in this area, even more so after voting themselves a £10,000 allowance for ICT (some spend considerably more than this on their web presence).

As the UK moves closer to a general election it will be interesting to watch the role that the internet plays not only in the formal campaign but in the lead up to it. Can prospective new members of parliament make any impact online, indeed can they use the internet to steal a march on the campaign proper? Or do the resources, time and skills available to elected members mean that this really isn't a level playing field? Watch this space!

Andy Williamson
Director, eDemocracy Programme
a[.]williamson[@]hansard[.]lse[.]ac[.]uk

* Norton, P. (2007). Four Models of Political Representation: British MPs and the Use of ICT. Journal of Legislative Studies, 13(3), 354-369.

Getting personal makes blogging a success

admin — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 11:17:00 GMT

It's safe to say that one would seldom associate the House of Lords with the cult of personality or, as a number of commentators have pointed out, with the internet. The Hansard Society knew differently on the latter as we've been working with their Lordships behind the scenes, prior to the launch of Lords of the Blog in March. We're also starting to change our mind on the former too, as we'll explain later.

The aim of the project was to provide access to what the House of Lords does, written as a commentary by peers themselves. We hoped it would be educational, we hoped too that it would allow a glimpse into the upper chamber in a way that helped the general public start to get what it does.

What we didn't expect was for the peers themselves to turn into the stars of the show. It's obvious really, but blogging isn't like writing for print. It's not like making political speeches, it's certainly a world away from the formalities and tradition of the House and it's definitely different to writing an academic paper. Yet Lord Norton, a self-confessed ‘political anorak', has demonstrated a willingness to disclose, a good dose of humility and a genuine desire to engage people. These are all ingredients in an interesting and successful blog.

Other peers have also provided some significant insights not just into the workings of the House of Lords but into their parliamentary lives. It's clear even at this early stage that they are enjoying the medium and the visitor statistics and survey feedback shows that the public are too. The site had 4,000 hits on the first day and receives hundreds of visitors every day, with obvious peaks when an interesting or topical post is added. It appears timely, certainly the media coverage has been positive not just in the UK but also from Australia and the US and the Google search results run to 20 pages already!

One of our fears in launching this project was that the blogsphere can be notoriously feral. Hardly appropriate for a website that is after all funded by the House of Lords! You only have to look at the Guardian's ‘Comment is free' to see what can happen! Yet, Lords of the Blog has received very positive feedback (OK, some of you thought the design was dull, but it's really not about the design... this isn't a Virgin franchise, it's the House of Lords). And the quality of comments is overwhelmingly high, impressively so from our point of view. These comments in fact demonstrate the real need for a forum such as this where people can not just passively learn about the House but also ask questions and engage with peers.

One month in we've done very little in the way of moderation and rejected only two postings. Rejecting a post is always a difficult decision and in many ways subjective but we do have a clear set of guidelines and we don't censor or stifle debate (in fact quite the opposite - that's the whole point of the blog!). The posting we rejected today was part of a valuable conversation that had drifted too far off-topic for a blog that is about the workings of the House of Lords. That happens, it's easy to do but we just needed to pull the conversation back on topic.

Overall I'm pleased with that moderation statistic. Considering that we've had 96 posts and approved 486 comments, with another half-dozen awaiting moderation by respective peers (authors approve comments themselves, that's why sometimes there's a bit of a delay in getting things on the site).

Andy Williamson
Director, eDemocracy Programme
a[.]williamson[@]hansard[.]lse[.]ac[.]uk

Barry Griffiths
Project Manager, eDemocracy Programme

On a web and a prayer

admin — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:18:00 GMT

The Procedure Committee of the House of Commons has been reviewing the prospect for ePetitions within Parliament. Their just released report paints a positive picture for the future of ePetitions but raises cautions about their introduction alongside the traditional written petition. We're not likely to see anything on the parliament.uk website before 2010.

It's certainly positive that the committee has taken a strong line on the necessary procedures and practices that are required, rather than focussing narrowly on a technological solution. They state a hope that ePetitions will open up democracy, perhaps overstating the case a little, but what is clear is that Parliament is certainly keen to move further into the digital age, and that's a good thing.

Rightly, there is concern of overlap and confusion between a new parliamentary system and the existing ePetitions site at 10 Downing Street. Close it down and leave it to the House is the polite conclusion! Sound advice as finally we're looking at an online petitioning system where citizens have a real chance of being heard.

If the recommendations are implemented, ePetitions will be assigned to the constituency MP of the petitioner. The format gets a bit of a makeover too, simplified slightly from the traditional paper-based system but the overall concept of petitioner, prayer, explanation and signatories is retained. Interestingly, the idea of a Petitions Committee is rejected in favour of the Procedure Committee retaining control and the process being managed by the Clerks.

I'm pleased to see that the feeling is to keep the system open and manage problem or malicious petitions within that system, rather than trying to lock it down from the start. That's a good approach. The Procedure Committee is also upbeat about managing the quantity of petitions too. The only recommendation I'm struggling with is the idea that three petitions a year get debated in Westminster Hall. It's a rather quantitative sore-thumb amid a set of recommendations that are refreshingly focussed on the qualitative nature of petitions. The significance of the topic and a well argued prayer seem to have won the day over a simplistic count of signatures and so it's hard to see how such debates offer anything other than a media-savvy gimmick!

Andy Williamson
Director, eDemocracy Programme
a[.]williamson[@]hansard[.]lse[.]ac[.]uk

Lords of the Blog interviewed by Catch 21

admin — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:35:00 GMT

The most recent Hansard Society project - Lords of the Blog - has so far taken the world of blogging by storm. The House of Lords appears to be an institution much misunderstood by the public, many of whom have no idea what Peers do and who inhabits the second chamber, but this is starting to change. The project, commissioned by the House of Lords authorities, is in a 6 month experimental phase after which its sucess will be evaluated by the Hansard Society and its contributors will take sole control. More Peers are becoming keen to be involved after seeing the interest that their colleagues have created for the often under-reported second chamber. Interest in who the Lords actually are, their hobbies, political interests and backgrounds, have been intriguing bloggers, who without the project, would not have had the opportunity or mechanism to quiz the Lords about what they do on a daily basis.

Catch 21, an internet televsion channel run by young people for young people, has interviewed two of the most prolific and enthusiastic peers in this project, Lord Norton and Lord Tyler, to give an introduction to what the project is all about and what it involves for them. Watch the interview here.

If you would like to get involved in Lord of the blogs you do not need to register, simply visit the site and reply to any of the threads.

eDemocracy, innovation and the risk of failure

admin — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 17:10:00 GMT

It's an old adage in the technology sector that, when working with innovative start-ups, nine out of ten will probably fail. And this is not considered either a problem or a bad thing. Why? Because, it's recognised that doing something different is a high risk strategy, but one that can lead to enormous reward. True failure only happens when nothing is learnt and we fail to carry those lessons forward to future projects.

I mention this because yesterday a select group of civil servants were told by cabinet secretary Sir Gus O'Donnell to become innovators. As O'Donnell rightly put it, "We have no choice but to innovate."

Coming from the heart of perhaps the most risk-averse culture known to man, this is promising stuff. It's rightly tempered with some caution, "officials [shouldn't] start taking unplanned risks", and he notes that the current national outlook can make being imaginative more of a challenge.

Overall this should bode well for eDemocracy. Why? Because eDemocracy is inherently innovative and requires a culture of innovation to work. To put it bluntly, good eDemocracy changes things: It transforms processes, makes people more accountable and it throws the doors and windows of government wide-open, allowing for greater public scrutiny. That's risky. Which is why most government-led eDemocracy projects to-date have been narrow in focus and tightly managed so as not to expose too much of the soft-underbelly of government.

I whole-heartedly encourage this shift towards entrepreneurial thinking. But I would go further and encourage those in charge to ensure that new ideas are fully and firmly embraced. Innovation fails within systems because the system is not responsive to change. Innovation fails because the people who are able to innovate - to come up with the new ideas - are not the people who have the skills (or the enthusiasm) to operationalise those ideas. End-to-end innovation - and, therefore, eDemocracy - takes in the whole of the organisation.

Going back to my first point, a large part of innovation culture is the acceptance of failure and how that is managed and learnt from. Not every eDemocracy project is going to be a success but, that's not the problem. Not trying in the first place is the problem.

Andy Williamson
Director, eDemocracy Programme
a[.]williamson[@]hansard[.]lse[.]ac[.]uk

Mayfly politics

admin — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 10:18:00 GMT

The democracy of yesterday was monolithic and happened on a grand scale. Partly as a result of this, our democratic institutions have lost their place in the hearts and minds of those they are supposed to represent. An undeniable and worsening democrat deficit is occurring where more and more people feel excluded.

There are of course arguments in favour of the old ways. They go something like, ‘representative democracy is a good thing' and that ‘control will be lost if the current system changes too much'. Hardly convincing; the system is not just out of date but out of touch. Responsive democracy does not challenge the notion of representative democracy, just the reality of civic disconnection. For many citizens, democracy is already a failed concept but it does not follow that democracy itself is a failure.

It is obvious that new forms of political and democratic engagement are needed to reinvigorate popular debate and this is where technology has a role to play.

Online is touted as removing the scourge of democratic disillusion but of course it won't. It can't: The problem isn't technological it's human. Of itself, lowering the barriers to engagement won't make any long term difference if the perceived outcome is the same (nothing happens). This is a two-fold problem that is partly about having transparent and effective processes but also about building social capital; the networks and goodwill that connect people, keep them connected and make things happen.

Opportunities for engagement emerge from time to time for different people in different ways. That's a complicated way of saying that most things in personal politics are issues based and that, eventually, we each reach our personal tipping point. Our blood pressure rises such that we feel compelled to get involved or, at least, we are no longer able to sit back and do nothing. eDemocracy reduces the barriers to engagement so that the personal motivation required too get involved falls - the effort to reward ratio.

So what does effective eDemocracy look like? Rather than a few monolithic projects engaging lots of people, it's more likely to be many small, independent projects, each engaging a handful of people on focused, topical issues. Technology is matched to the nature of the issue and local forums emerge so that people can think things out and get to know each other offline as well as online. It's no coincidence that the highlight of Howard Dean's internet campaign was the use of MeetUp to organise physical get-togethers.

This is long tail democracy in action; hundreds, even thousands, of micro-projects, issued based, choosing the right technology. They're temporal; projects come and go. Growth is viral, dynamic, evolutionary and sites have a natural, short lifecycle - mayfly not tortoise. People have multiple and varied roles in many campaigns or consultations and so it doesn't just become noise, all of this is aggregated and listened to where it counts.

Andy Williamson
Director, eDemocracy Programme
a[.]williamson[@]hansard[.]lse[.]ac[.]uk

Nine Lords a-blogging

admin — Mon, 17 Mar 2008 12:44:00 GMT

Nine peers, with the support of the Hansard Society, have launched a blog to give members of the public an insight into the work of the House of Lords and the opportunity for discussion and debate on topical issues. The blogsite is now live and has already attracted comments from the public. Issues that have been posted about by peers so far, range from House of Lords reform to the reconstruction of Afghanistan.

The peers plan to contribute regular entries onto the site and moderate the content themselves. Over the next six months the Hansard Society will evaluate the pilot through data captured about the audience and assess its reach and value. To get involved please visit the Lords of the Blog website and have your say.