Tobias Escher - Technologies of Freedom? - A Seminar about the Internet and Democracy
From:
Steven Clift
Date:
Aug 04 15:19 UTC
Short link
From:
http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/escher/2008/08/01/internet-and-democracy-seminar/
Oxford University and OII Logos
Tobias Escher at the OII
is a Research Assistant and a DPhil Student
Technologies of Freedom? - A Seminar about the Internet and Democracy
Published by tobias.escher August 1st, 2008 in *OIINEWS, Bonn, eDemocracy,
teaching
I recently finished teaching a seminar at the Department for Communication
Science at the University of Bonn in Germany on the admittedly broad topic of
the Internet and Democracy. This postgraduate seminar ran over five sessions
with a total of more than 20 hours. Given that this was the first time I have
taught the subject it really was a lot of work but I enjoyed it very much. This
was aided by a small seminar which allowed for a lot of interaction which also
seems to have caught on with the students.
So what was it about? The focus of the course was to highlight ways in which
digital technologies can be used in order for citizens to take part in the
political process - both formally and informally. Given that the students had
little background in the academic study of the Internet I started with
highlighting the features arising from the shift towards a networked public
sphere, the new activities it enables (e.g. citizen journalism) and possible
problems associated with it (e.g. think cyberbalkanization).
Having laid the foundations in this way we would subsequently move on to
discuss ways in which governments encourage participation via online means
(e.g. online petitions and online consultations) as well as initiatives by
non-governmental actors (e.g. mySociety or abgeordnetenwatch.de). Emphasis was
laid on an empirical examination of those efforts and a comparative perspective
mainly between the UK and Germany.
Judging from the discussions during the seminar I would argue we reached its
aim as I stated it originally in the lecture list:
“At the end of this course you should have a good overview about the
opportunities offered by the Internet to re-invigorate democracy and civil
society as well as the current state of the art in digital democracy together
with an understanding of current research that should enable you to critically
evaluate claims about the promise of the Internet for a more participative
democracy.”
The material is still being developed and having taught the seminar there are
already a number of issues I plan on revising. Nevertheless I thought it might
be a good idea to post the slides below as to give others some inspiration but
mainly to get your comments.
(See links from:
http://people.oii.ox.ac.uk/escher/2008/08/01/internet-and-democracy-seminar/ )
Internet and Democracy - I Introduction
Internet and Democracy - II Networked Public Sphere
Internet and Democracy - III Networked Public Sphere
Internet and Democracy - IV eParticipation
Internet and Democracy - V eParticipation and eDemocracy
The seminar was greatly contributed to by a number of people that agreed to
share their expertise with the class, in particular Oliver Märker of Zebralog
and Markus Beckedahl of netzpolitik.org. Thank you very much!
PS: I use eParticipation to denote governmental efforts to utilise the Internet
for increased political participation while I refer to eDemocracy as
applications and initiatives that are built by non-governmental actors. This
terminology is somewhat in contrast to other people’s usage of these terms.
For one visualization of the different typologies see http://e-demokratie.org.
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Urban Ubiquity
Date:
Aug 01 15:11 UTC
Short link
01.08.2008
The subjects at hand interest me a great deal. My question for everyone is
this: Can new technologies of communication really help to better political
systems, advance democracy and stimulate public participation in the
political process?
For there to be a valid and legitimate change, I think neither the support
(i.e., the communication tool) nor the process is the answer. We can
modernize the support all we want; it has been and will always be the
mentality of the individuals (i.e., citizens and politicians) and their
willingness to participate. When we speak about E-democracy - a term that I
still deem premature given the state of things - not only do we have to take
into account the willingness from both parties (i.e., government and
citizen) to act, but also the level of *confidence *- not trust - each party
has in the other.
(Note: The word *trust *is too strong, close to impossible to measure and
perhaps too moral a word to be associated with politics or democracy. With
the word *confidence, *there's an idea of probability that lingers (i.e., I
am confident my elected official will do what she or he says), and thus
seems a little more appropriate.
Can new technologies of communication really help to bring politicians
closer to understanding the challenges citizens face and vice versa? Yes, I
believe they can.
I think the first step, though, should be e-participation and not
e-democracy. For the latter to work the way we want it, the former must
first be sought.
On Fri, Aug 1, 2008 at 3:45 PM, Simon Smith <> wrote:
> > 3. The public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48
> hours after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the
> website/meeting record.
> Are there cases where the practice described in point 3 has actually been
> followed?
>
> I'd endorse Peter's final suggestion about hooks into the system by
> community-based interest groups, and John's about wired local associations
> and active political bloggers. These are indicators of the degree of
> integration of the local websphere: is the Council website an island, or
> does it link seamlessly with other sites that contribute to local
> democracy?
> That's a key question for me.
>
> More broadly, indicators need to relate to context, especially if we're to
> be able to compare cross-nationally.
> What counts as transparent, accessible and participative in one country
> might not be the same in another Variables include political culture, which
> shapes public expectations, the legal requirements on authorities as to
> what
> information they should publish, their size, budgetary autonomy,
> competences, etc. For instance, Peart & Diaz found that North American
> local
> authorities scored better on what they called transparency measures, with
> lots of webcasting, for example, whereas European local authorities scored
> particularly well on deliberative measures, with lots of discussion forums.
> See http://edc.unige.ch/edcadmin/images/ESF%20-%20Local%20E-Democracy.pdf
> It's impossible to make comparisons on a rank-order scale without taking
> into account the underlying cultural factors that might explain different
> choices.
>
> Simon Smith
>
> 2008/7/29 Steven Clift <>
>
> > OK, how about others?
> >
> > On my list, a few items I'd measure:
> >
> > 1. All public meetings are announced online with agendas (1 point),
> minutes
> > (1 point), and all handouts and staff reports (2 points, bonus point for
> > online before a meeting).
> > 2. All elected officials have full contact information, a photo, brief
> bio,
> > and list of committees/roles as well as an e-mail address listed (bonus
> > point), an optional web contact form, with -2 point if no e-mail address
> is
> > listed publicly.
> > 3. The public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48
> > hours after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the
> > website/meeting record.
> >
> > What about you?
> >
> > Steven Clift
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
> >
> > Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network
> > with all posts on this topic here:
> > http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7iOzrCN4mG6tya9vkzW3jI
> >
> > For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
> > Network,
> > email
> > with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
> >
> > E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by Democracies
> > Online - http://dowire.org.
> >
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
>
> Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network
> with all posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/6jgKdxekAWI8iQyphsOUKn
>
> For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
> Network,
> email
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by Democracies
> Online - http://dowire.org.
>
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Simon Smith
Date:
Aug 01 13:45 UTC
Short link
> 3. The public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48
hours after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the
website/meeting record.
Are there cases where the practice described in point 3 has actually been
followed?
I'd endorse Peter's final suggestion about hooks into the system by
community-based interest groups, and John's about wired local associations
and active political bloggers. These are indicators of the degree of
integration of the local websphere: is the Council website an island, or
does it link seamlessly with other sites that contribute to local democracy?
That's a key question for me.
More broadly, indicators need to relate to context, especially if we're to
be able to compare cross-nationally.
What counts as transparent, accessible and participative in one country
might not be the same in another Variables include political culture, which
shapes public expectations, the legal requirements on authorities as to what
information they should publish, their size, budgetary autonomy,
competences, etc. For instance, Peart & Diaz found that North American local
authorities scored better on what they called transparency measures, with
lots of webcasting, for example, whereas European local authorities scored
particularly well on deliberative measures, with lots of discussion forums.
See http://edc.unige.ch/edcadmin/images/ESF%20-%20Local%20E-Democracy.pdf
It's impossible to make comparisons on a rank-order scale without taking
into account the underlying cultural factors that might explain different
choices.
Simon Smith
2008/7/29 Steven Clift <>
> OK, how about others?
>
> On my list, a few items I'd measure:
>
> 1. All public meetings are announced online with agendas (1 point), minutes
> (1 point), and all handouts and staff reports (2 points, bonus point for
> online before a meeting).
> 2. All elected officials have full contact information, a photo, brief bio,
> and list of committees/roles as well as an e-mail address listed (bonus
> point), an optional web contact form, with -2 point if no e-mail address is
> listed publicly.
> 3. The public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48
> hours after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the
> website/meeting record.
>
> What about you?
>
> Steven Clift
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
>
> Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network
> with all posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7iOzrCN4mG6tya9vkzW3jI
>
> For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
> Network,
> email
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by Democracies
> Online - http://dowire.org.
>
Toward a theory of IT mediated politics
From:
Michael Allan
Date:
Jul 31 12:47 UTC
Short link
James Gilmour wrote, in reply to Michael Allan, in
:
> Quite apart from having to make the decisions with which significant
> numbers of electors will disagree, there is another expectation of
> government, namely that it will pursue a coherent set of policies
> and actions across the whole of the political sphere. (Of course,
> governments often fail in this - for a variety of very different
> reasons - but that does not affect the expectation.) As
> individuals, not subject to the practical constraints of having to
> make and implement the decisions, we may well support policies that
> are mutually incompatible - though we would probably not campaign
> for both at the same time! So the extra-governmental discussion
> framework needs to be able to draw in the wider considerations, many
> of which will not have occurred to the single-issue campaigners or
> will have been deliberately ignored by them.
It's all there in scenario S, though it wasn't fleshed out in detail.
There are many places where coordination occurs. Some of the
coordination is mostly local (safety concerns, coordinated by H) and
some is more central. Here are some of the central ones:
1) When M first hears of the plan to improve the park, she may have
doubts about its ultimate approval. So she asks her
super-delegate (whom she is voting for), "What's the approval
chain for this kind of plan?"
In dialogue with her super-delegate, perhaps including a
bureaucrat or two, she learns what the criteria are. She gets a
rough sense that the chances are good.
2) When the planners are nearing consensus, M decides to request
formal approval for the preliminary stages of the plan (mostly
the first safety inspection). She passes the request to her
super-delegate, who passes to her own super-delegate, and so
on... With each pass, it comes into the hands of someone who is
a) carrying a great many more votes, and b) closer to the
bureaucracy. Soon it is passed to the Planning Coordinator for
the Parks Department (perhaps a super-delegate herself).
3) The request finds its way back to M, via the Comptroller in the
Parks Department.
So here is coordination for both policy (2) and budget (3). Notice
how the voting lines of the delegates are the communication lines
between the planners in the periphery, and the bureaucracy at the
center. Notice how every link has a strong incentive to keep the
lines open and efficient.
If word comes back to M that the request was denied, then there will
have to be reasons attached to that decision. Every link in the
communication chain is going to be disappointed by this result, and is
going to be asking for those reasons. Hanging in the balance are are
a good number of votes (ultimately for the Mayor), which can shift at
any time. No bureaucrat will say "No" without providing good reasons.
It is then M's responsibility, to explain those reasons either to the
planners (if plan changes are needed), or to the rest of the
neighbourhood (if it was rejected outright). Votes are hanging in the
balance for M too.
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Mick
Date:
Jul 30 18:58 UTC
Short link
Having had an English local authority web site, plus all the e-democracy
appendages, under my control for nearly ten years I've watched things
grow (and I've read most of the tosh on social capital). The usage has
crept up, with the occasional burst as people have gained confidence in
the medium and that includes whether their emails and e-forms will be
responded to. It also includes contacting their elected representatives
and expecting them to act (trust). I've given the elected reps websites
and blogs, computers and email - I have to trust them to use them
properly and that the public will contact via these channels. As it is
the web usage is dead slow by the elected members - OK they receive and
respond to emails but they have yet to get into blogging - where
councils do get it done there's often a member of staff doing it!
I've also set up public forums that don't get used - most likely through
lack of trust that action will not occur. It needs to be seen to be
followed through and it needs people to use the channels to make it
happen.
Participation happens when people contact their elected rep and they can
see them passing on the action to an employee to sort out. Where the
public lose trust/faith is where this doesn't occur or the staffer does
nothing! (and I've seen this happen elsewhere).
Essentially, counting the visitors gets nowhere - watching them over a
period helps but it needs to be at usage and performance. Just putting
up email addresses and blogs does nothing, they need promoting.
Mick
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 19:10
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Many of my friends who study social capital would have difficulty with
your contention.
Back to trust and usage. I don't trust many of the websites I visit. I
have a lot of software on my computer to protect me from them.
While I will concede that activity is important, it speaks more to other
factors. I also think that equating usage with participation is
problematic. What kind of usage is more critical. If I go to my town's
website to check on road closings or trash collection, that isn't
political participation (its more like low level e-commerce) but if I
send the city
manager e-mail it might be.
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mick Phythian
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Can't agree more! It's the very complexity of social capital that would
make it difficult to measure but trust in government using the medium
must contribute towards it...
I never said usage = trust but trust will increase usage but as a
measure usage can't replace trust.
What I think we need is a measure of proportionate activity that will
indicate increasing or decreasing trust in the medium etc (not
particularly in government) - that people become more willing to express
opinions or attempt to have an effect via the e-mediums?
M
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 18:37
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Sorry but I can't agree. Social capital is more complex than merely
trust (which is very difficult to measure reliably) in than it also
speaks to the underlying networks that make a government function. Usage
does not equal trust. If you mean things like hits, page views and so
forth that's a long way from any reasonable measure of trust in
government.
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mick Phythian
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
I find terms like social capital and public value to be of little use,
although in the widest sense an improvement in social capital may
indicate increased trust.
Mick
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 14:30
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
That would seem to argue for both a social capital measure and a trust
in government measure
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mick Phythian
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is a measure of usage i.e.
perhaps trust. Its great having loads of e-demo stuff but if nobody uses
it because they fon't trust/accept/want it, what then? Therefor amount
of usage against any input metric.
Mick http://greatemancipator.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 02:29
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Add digital divide and degree of wired local associations. Maybe active
political bloggers?
John McNutt
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Steven Clift
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
OK, how about others?
On my list, a few items I'd measure:
1. All public meetings are announced online with agendas (1 point),
minutes (1 point), and all handouts and staff reports (2 points, bonus
point for online before a meeting). 2. All elected officials have full
contact information, a photo, brief bio, and list of committees/roles as
well as an e-mail address listed (bonus point), an optional web contact
form, with -2 point if no e-mail address is listed publicly. 3. The
public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48 hours
after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the
website/meeting record.
What about you?
Steven Clift
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7iOzrCN4mG6tya9vkzW3jI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Click to go wireless with your computer, ultra fast speed.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4t631E8EjwtwrGQX7vj
Bzfmh5HegDKAVpug5wsIG1HjZ0CtD/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5CESqztkj85irIabF7FRNI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1579 - Release Date:
29/07/2008 06:43
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/26V31qTdcPBDQ4g4Mfoglz
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Make your vacation more memorable with a luxurious vacation rental.
Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4uHMmqurUZdJNIncQyk
kGJtoyxH5mhaR8tU0GqNkoAFelRFv/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5T6CzhYuPygs3Yx5JfpBVZ
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1581 - Release Date:
30/07/2008 06:56
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5RmlsZx1Im02xCGNdURrnA
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Beauty School Programs - Get the career you've always wanted. Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4vHBOCAeHUJGBCh52GM
MtpW0KCkgBqHu7bcrmpGM7eH1dfXr/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5z6XRGBSw0wLwSAbvDHNbO
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1581 - Release Date:
30/07/2008 06:56
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/1xi9q8ZCCSin2c8ASvkQ1k
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Hotel pics, info and virtual tours. Click here to book a hotel online.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4uHAe3KU0TwqB8rA5kN
5zEZlP5jdGbMlEY5GlGhyaJS4KCfH/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/nfzNzdHYNTpaDaJ0K3lzV
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1581 - Release Date:
30/07/2008 06:56
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Mcnuttjg To Update
Date:
Jul 30 18:09 UTC
Short link
Many of my friends who study social capital would have difficulty with your
contention.
Back to trust and usage. I don't trust many of the websites I visit. I have
a lot of software on my computer to protect me from them.
While I will concede that activity is important, it speaks more to other
factors. I also think that equating usage with participation is
problematic. What kind of usage is more critical. If I go to my town's
website to check on road closings or trash collection, that isn't political
participation (its more like low level e-commerce) but if I send the city
manager e-mail it might be.
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mick Phythian
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:53 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Can't agree more! It's the very complexity of social capital that would
make it difficult to measure but trust in government using the medium
must contribute towards it...
I never said usage = trust but trust will increase usage but as a
measure usage can't replace trust.
What I think we need is a measure of proportionate activity that will
indicate increasing or decreasing trust in the medium etc (not
particularly in government) - that people become more willing to express
opinions or attempt to have an effect via the e-mediums?
M
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 18:37
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Sorry but I can't agree. Social capital is more complex than merely
trust (which is very difficult to measure reliably) in than it also
speaks to the underlying networks that make a government function. Usage
does not equal trust. If you mean things like hits, page views and so
forth that's a long way from any reasonable measure of trust in
government.
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mick Phythian
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
I find terms like social capital and public value to be of little use,
although in the widest sense an improvement in social capital may
indicate increased trust.
Mick
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 14:30
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
That would seem to argue for both a social capital measure and a trust
in government measure
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mick Phythian
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is a measure of usage i.e.
perhaps trust. Its great having loads of e-demo stuff but if nobody uses
it because they fon't trust/accept/want it, what then? Therefor amount
of usage against any input metric.
Mick http://greatemancipator.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 02:29
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Add digital divide and degree of wired local associations. Maybe active
political bloggers?
John McNutt
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Steven Clift
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
OK, how about others?
On my list, a few items I'd measure:
1. All public meetings are announced online with agendas (1 point),
minutes (1 point), and all handouts and staff reports (2 points, bonus
point for online before a meeting). 2. All elected officials have full
contact information, a photo, brief bio, and list of committees/roles as
well as an e-mail address listed (bonus point), an optional web contact
form, with -2 point if no e-mail address is listed publicly. 3. The
public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48 hours
after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the
website/meeting record.
What about you?
Steven Clift
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7iOzrCN4mG6tya9vkzW3jI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Click to go wireless with your computer, ultra fast speed.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4t631E8EjwtwrGQX7vj
Bzfmh5HegDKAVpug5wsIG1HjZ0CtD/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5CESqztkj85irIabF7FRNI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1579 - Release Date:
29/07/2008 06:43
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/26V31qTdcPBDQ4g4Mfoglz
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Make your vacation more memorable with a luxurious vacation rental.
Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4uHMmqurUZdJNIncQyk
kGJtoyxH5mhaR8tU0GqNkoAFelRFv/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5T6CzhYuPygs3Yx5JfpBVZ
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1581 - Release Date:
30/07/2008 06:56
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5RmlsZx1Im02xCGNdURrnA
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Beauty School Programs - Get the career you've always wanted. Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4vHBOCAeHUJGBCh52GM
MtpW0KCkgBqHu7bcrmpGM7eH1dfXr/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5z6XRGBSw0wLwSAbvDHNbO
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1581 - Release Date:
30/07/2008 06:56
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network
with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/1xi9q8ZCCSin2c8ASvkQ1k
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by Democracies
Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Hotel pics, info and virtual tours. Click here to book a hotel online.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4uHAe3KU0TwqB8rA5kN5zEZlP5jdGbMlEY5GlGhyaJS4KCfH/
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Mick
Date:
Jul 30 17:52 UTC
Short link
Can't agree more! It's the very complexity of social capital that would
make it difficult to measure but trust in government using the medium
must contribute towards it...
I never said usage = trust but trust will increase usage but as a
measure usage can't replace trust.
What I think we need is a measure of proportionate activity that will
indicate increasing or decreasing trust in the medium etc (not
particularly in government) - that people become more willing to express
opinions or attempt to have an effect via the e-mediums?
M
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 18:37
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Sorry but I can't agree. Social capital is more complex than merely
trust (which is very difficult to measure reliably) in than it also
speaks to the underlying networks that make a government function. Usage
does not equal trust. If you mean things like hits, page views and so
forth that's a long way from any reasonable measure of trust in
government.
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mick Phythian
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
I find terms like social capital and public value to be of little use,
although in the widest sense an improvement in social capital may
indicate increased trust.
Mick
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 14:30
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
That would seem to argue for both a social capital measure and a trust
in government measure
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mick Phythian
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is a measure of usage i.e.
perhaps trust. Its great having loads of e-demo stuff but if nobody uses
it because they fon't trust/accept/want it, what then? Therefor amount
of usage against any input metric.
Mick http://greatemancipator.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 02:29
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Add digital divide and degree of wired local associations. Maybe active
political bloggers?
John McNutt
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Steven Clift
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
OK, how about others?
On my list, a few items I'd measure:
1. All public meetings are announced online with agendas (1 point),
minutes (1 point), and all handouts and staff reports (2 points, bonus
point for online before a meeting). 2. All elected officials have full
contact information, a photo, brief bio, and list of committees/roles as
well as an e-mail address listed (bonus point), an optional web contact
form, with -2 point if no e-mail address is listed publicly. 3. The
public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48 hours
after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the
website/meeting record.
What about you?
Steven Clift
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7iOzrCN4mG6tya9vkzW3jI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Click to go wireless with your computer, ultra fast speed.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4t631E8EjwtwrGQX7vj
Bzfmh5HegDKAVpug5wsIG1HjZ0CtD/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5CESqztkj85irIabF7FRNI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1579 - Release Date:
29/07/2008 06:43
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/26V31qTdcPBDQ4g4Mfoglz
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Make your vacation more memorable with a luxurious vacation rental.
Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4uHMmqurUZdJNIncQyk
kGJtoyxH5mhaR8tU0GqNkoAFelRFv/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5T6CzhYuPygs3Yx5JfpBVZ
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1581 - Release Date:
30/07/2008 06:56
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5RmlsZx1Im02xCGNdURrnA
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Beauty School Programs - Get the career you've always wanted. Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4vHBOCAeHUJGBCh52GM
MtpW0KCkgBqHu7bcrmpGM7eH1dfXr/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5z6XRGBSw0wLwSAbvDHNbO
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1581 - Release Date:
30/07/2008 06:56
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Mcnuttjg To Update
Date:
Jul 30 17:37 UTC
Short link
Sorry but I can't agree. Social capital is more complex than merely trust
(which is very difficult to measure reliably) in than it also speaks to the
underlying networks that make a government function. Usage does not equal
trust. If you mean things like hits, page views and so forth that's a long
way from any reasonable measure of trust in government.
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mick Phythian
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 1:21 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
I find terms like social capital and public value to be of little use,
although in the widest sense an improvement in social capital may
indicate increased trust.
Mick
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 14:30
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
That would seem to argue for both a social capital measure and a trust
in government measure
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mick Phythian
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is a measure of usage i.e.
perhaps trust. Its great having loads of e-demo stuff but if nobody uses
it because they fon't trust/accept/want it, what then? Therefor amount
of usage against any input metric.
Mick http://greatemancipator.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 02:29
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Add digital divide and degree of wired local associations. Maybe active
political bloggers?
John McNutt
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Steven Clift
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
OK, how about others?
On my list, a few items I'd measure:
1. All public meetings are announced online with agendas (1 point),
minutes (1 point), and all handouts and staff reports (2 points, bonus
point for online before a meeting). 2. All elected officials have full
contact information, a photo, brief bio, and list of committees/roles as
well as an e-mail address listed (bonus point), an optional web contact
form, with -2 point if no e-mail address is listed publicly. 3. The
public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48 hours
after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the
website/meeting record.
What about you?
Steven Clift
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7iOzrCN4mG6tya9vkzW3jI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Click to go wireless with your computer, ultra fast speed.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4t631E8EjwtwrGQX7vj
Bzfmh5HegDKAVpug5wsIG1HjZ0CtD/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5CESqztkj85irIabF7FRNI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1579 - Release Date:
29/07/2008 06:43
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/26V31qTdcPBDQ4g4Mfoglz
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Make your vacation more memorable with a luxurious vacation rental.
Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4uHMmqurUZdJNIncQyk
kGJtoyxH5mhaR8tU0GqNkoAFelRFv/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5T6CzhYuPygs3Yx5JfpBVZ
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1581 - Release Date:
30/07/2008 06:56
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network
with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5RmlsZx1Im02xCGNdURrnA
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by Democracies
Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Beauty School Programs - Get the career you've always wanted. Click Now.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4vHBOCAeHUJGBCh52GMMtpW0KCkgBqHu7bcrmpGM7eH1dfXr/
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Mick
Date:
Jul 30 17:23 UTC
Short link
I find terms like social capital and public value to be of little use,
although in the widest sense an improvement in social capital may
indicate increased trust.
Mick
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 14:30
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
That would seem to argue for both a social capital measure and a trust
in government measure
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mick Phythian
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is a measure of usage i.e.
perhaps trust. Its great having loads of e-demo stuff but if nobody uses
it because they fon't trust/accept/want it, what then? Therefor amount
of usage against any input metric.
Mick http://greatemancipator.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 02:29
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Add digital divide and degree of wired local associations. Maybe active
political bloggers?
John McNutt
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Steven Clift
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
OK, how about others?
On my list, a few items I'd measure:
1. All public meetings are announced online with agendas (1 point),
minutes (1 point), and all handouts and staff reports (2 points, bonus
point for online before a meeting). 2. All elected officials have full
contact information, a photo, brief bio, and list of committees/roles as
well as an e-mail address listed (bonus point), an optional web contact
form, with -2 point if no e-mail address is listed publicly. 3. The
public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48 hours
after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the
website/meeting record.
What about you?
Steven Clift
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7iOzrCN4mG6tya9vkzW3jI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Click to go wireless with your computer, ultra fast speed.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4t631E8EjwtwrGQX7vj
Bzfmh5HegDKAVpug5wsIG1HjZ0CtD/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5CESqztkj85irIabF7FRNI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1579 - Release Date:
29/07/2008 06:43
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/26V31qTdcPBDQ4g4Mfoglz
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Make your vacation more memorable with a luxurious vacation rental.
Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4uHMmqurUZdJNIncQyk
kGJtoyxH5mhaR8tU0GqNkoAFelRFv/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5T6CzhYuPygs3Yx5JfpBVZ
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.7/1581 - Release Date:
30/07/2008 06:56
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Mcnuttjg To Update
Date:
Jul 30 13:31 UTC
Short link
That would seem to argue for both a social capital measure and a trust in
government measure
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Mick Phythian
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 2:27 AM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is a measure of usage i.e.
perhaps trust. Its great having loads of e-demo stuff but if nobody uses
it because they fon't trust/accept/want it, what then? Therefor amount
of usage against any input metric.
Mick http://greatemancipator.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 02:29
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Add digital divide and degree of wired local associations. Maybe active
political bloggers?
John McNutt
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Steven Clift
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
OK, how about others?
On my list, a few items I'd measure:
1. All public meetings are announced online with agendas (1 point),
minutes (1 point), and all handouts and staff reports (2 points, bonus
point for online before a meeting). 2. All elected officials have full
contact information, a photo, brief bio, and list of committees/roles as
well as an e-mail address listed (bonus point), an optional web contact
form, with -2 point if no e-mail address is listed publicly. 3. The
public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48 hours
after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the
website/meeting record.
What about you?
Steven Clift
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7iOzrCN4mG6tya9vkzW3jI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Click to go wireless with your computer, ultra fast speed.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4t631E8EjwtwrGQX7vj
Bzfmh5HegDKAVpug5wsIG1HjZ0CtD/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5CESqztkj85irIabF7FRNI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1579 - Release Date:
29/07/2008 06:43
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network
with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/26V31qTdcPBDQ4g4Mfoglz
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by Democracies
Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Make your vacation more memorable with a luxurious vacation rental. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4uHMmqurUZdJNIncQykkGJtoyxH5mhaR8tU0GqNkoAFelRFv/
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Mick
Date:
Jul 30 07:48 UTC
Short link
One thing I don't think has been mentioned is a measure of usage i.e.
perhaps trust. Its great having loads of e-demo stuff but if nobody uses
it because they fon't trust/accept/want it, what then? Therefor amount
of usage against any input metric.
Mick http://greatemancipator.com
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of John McNutt
Sent: 30 July 2008 02:29
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
Add digital divide and degree of wired local associations. Maybe active
political bloggers?
John McNutt
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On
Behalf Of Steven Clift
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
OK, how about others?
On my list, a few items I'd measure:
1. All public meetings are announced online with agendas (1 point),
minutes (1 point), and all handouts and staff reports (2 points, bonus
point for online before a meeting). 2. All elected officials have full
contact information, a photo, brief bio, and list of committees/roles as
well as an e-mail address listed (bonus point), an optional web contact
form, with -2 point if no e-mail address is listed publicly. 3. The
public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48 hours
after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the
website/meeting record.
What about you?
Steven Clift
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7iOzrCN4mG6tya9vkzW3jI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Click to go wireless with your computer, ultra fast speed.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4t631E8EjwtwrGQX7vj
Bzfmh5HegDKAVpug5wsIG1HjZ0CtD/
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network with all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/5CESqztkj85irIabF7FRNI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by
Democracies Online - http://dowire.org. No virus found in this incoming
message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.6/1579 - Release Date:
29/07/2008 06:43
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Mcnuttjg To Update
Date:
Jul 30 01:37 UTC
Short link
Add digital divide and degree of wired local associations. Maybe active
political bloggers?
John McNutt
-----Original Message-----
From: [mailto:] On Behalf
Of Steven Clift
Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2008 2:57 PM
To:
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
OK, how about others?
On my list, a few items I'd measure:
1. All public meetings are announced online with agendas (1 point), minutes (1
point), and all handouts and staff reports (2 points, bonus point for online
before a meeting).
2. All elected officials have full contact information, a photo, brief bio, and
list of committees/roles as well as an e-mail address listed (bonus point), an
optional web contact form, with -2 point if no e-mail address is listed
publicly.
3. The public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48 hours
after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the website/meeting
record.
What about you?
Steven Clift
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network with
all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7iOzrCN4mG6tya9vkzW3jI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by Democracies
Online - http://dowire.org.
____________________________________________________________
Click to go wireless with your computer, ultra fast speed.
http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2241/fc/Ioyw6i4t631E8EjwtwrGQX7vjBzfmh5HegDKAVpug5wsIG1HjZ0CtD/
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Peter Chen
Date:
Jul 29 22:33 UTC
Short link
I'd add some suggestions:
* Performance information provided in traditional (annual report) and raw data
forms, for reanalysis by 3rd parties
* Provision of local mapping information relevant for local organizations
* Clearly articulated policy development and implementation process provided
online in plain lanugage
* Meaningful organizational structure information provided
* Ability to subscribe / track policy issues and project and be notified in a
timely manner of changes in their status
* Hooks (technical and or administrative) into information system by local
interest groups which represent the community
For what they're worth,
Peter
_ ___________________ _
Peter John Chen
Sydney Australia
0432 845 766
----- Original Message ----
From: Steven Clift <>
To:
Sent: Wednesday, 30 July, 2008 4:57:03 AM
Subject: Re: [EDemR] Metrics to judge local e-democracy
OK, how about others?
On my list, a few items I'd measure:
1. All public meetings are announced online with agendas (1 point), minutes (1
point), and all handouts and staff reports (2 points, bonus point for online
before a meeting).
2. All elected officials have full contact information, a photo, brief bio, and
list of committees/roles as well as an e-mail address listed (bonus point), an
optional web contact form, with -2 point if no e-mail address is listed
publicly.
3. The public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48 hours
after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the website/meeting
record.
What about you?
Steven Clift
-----------------------------------------
Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network with
all posts on this topic here:
http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/7iOzrCN4mG6tya9vkzW3jI
For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
Network,
email
with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by Democracies
Online - http://dowire.org.
Find a better answer, faster with the new Yahoo!7 Search.
www.yahoo7.com.au/search
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Steven Clift
Date:
Jul 29 18:56 UTC
Short link
OK, how about others?
On my list, a few items I'd measure:
1. All public meetings are announced online with agendas (1 point), minutes (1
point), and all handouts and staff reports (2 points, bonus point for online
before a meeting).
2. All elected officials have full contact information, a photo, brief bio, and
list of committees/roles as well as an e-mail address listed (bonus point), an
optional web contact form, with -2 point if no e-mail address is listed
publicly.
3. The public is invited to submit electronic testimony for at least 48 hours
after an in-person meeting and this testimony is added to the website/meeting
record.
What about you?
Steven Clift
Toward a theory of IT mediated politics
From:
Michael Allan
Date:
Jul 29 09:55 UTC
Short link
I've just come from discussions in a couple of other mailing lists
(URLs at bottom). We've discovered what appears to be a "missing
link" in the connection between IT and politics. See if you agree.
Consider this scenario:
(S). The young people in a certain neighbourhood wish to make
improvements to their local playground or park. They come up with a
plan and begin to promote it locally. Some of them are in
disagreement and propose alternative plans. They all have access to
a new kind of electoral medium. They use the medium to highlight
their differences and to resolve them one by one. Eventually they
reach a general agreement on a consensus plan. The City sends a
safety inspector to the site, and trucks in some sand. With a
little help, the young people complete the improvements to the park.
The technology to enable this is not the issue. The original concept
of the electoral medium came out of discussions in the APSA_ITP
mailing list (August 2007). It has since been coded and beta trials
are pending. The technical side is well enough known. But the
societal effects have always been unclear. They now appear to be a
little clearer, or at least easier to talk about. I will argue that
the following predictions are warranted:
i) a structural transformation between the public sphere and
government, in response to
ii) the decentralized composition and promulgation of norms, and
iii) the decentralized coordination and application of political
power.
All of these changes are operative in scenario S. The supporting
arguments will follow, based on the schema below. (To see this, you
may need a fixed-width font.)
Interchange Relations between the Public Sphere and Government
from the Perspective of Government
1a)
M'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Taxes
P
< - - - - - - - - - -
Organizational
accomplishments
Public Administrative
sphere 2a) system (government)
P
< - - - - - - - - - -
Political
decisions
P'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Mass loyalty
M = money medium, P = power medium. From Habermas. The Theory of
Communicative Action. Vol 2.
(i). The main argument is that the institution of the new electoral
medium (in the pattern of scenario S) is going to cause a structural
transformation of the public sphere. This will affect the citizenship
interchange (2a). Decision making will be transferred from government
to the public sphere, resulting in a modified interchange:
2a')
P
< - - - - - - - - - -
Political
action
A'
- - - - - - - - - - >
Political
decisions
A = assent medium, M = money medium, P = power medium
The old input of "mass loyalty" mediated by power (2a) is here
replaced by one of "political decisions" mediated by assent (2a').
Its overall operation is simple. Whenever the public sphere has
reached consensus on a political decision, government accepts that
decision (input). If the decision is immediately actionable, then
government acts on it (output). Otherwise, the reasons for inaction
are made known, and further communication occurs between the two sides
(back and forth). Details of this operation are clarified below,
first with respect to norms (ii), and then power (iii).
(ii). With respect to norms (laws, plans, policies), I will not go
into complete details. The main outlines are already documented for
project Votorola (link at bottom). And it is clear enough in scenario
S, at least, that both the composition (formal plan) and promulgation
(actual work) of the park improvement have been distributed throughout
the local community, entirely in response to the *pull* of local
interest. The central government was largely bypassed.
(iii). With respect to power, the probable effects of the medium were
never understood until now. These effects can be illustrated by
introducing a few characters (M, H and W) into scenario S.
(ad S). M is a community leader in the neighbourhood. She has a
large share of the votes as a local delegate in the open election
for Mayor. When she learns of the plans to improve the local park
she takes an interest. She speaks to another person in the
neighbourhood (H). H is a local delegate in the election for Public
Health Officer. M asks H to look into the safety issues of the
proposed plan.
H agrees to M's request. He takes the lead in drafting the safety
amendments for the plan. Seeing this, many of the parents in the
neighbourhood cast their votes for H. These votes are numerous, and
they ensure that safety concerns are going to feature prominently in
the plan.
The young planners have questions about the delivery of the sand, so
they approach W. W is a local building contractor who is always
active in the election for Public Works Officer. W explains that
several types of sand are available from the City yards. He says
that delivery will depend on budgetary approval. So they add "sand"
to the budget section of their plan.
Later, when it appears that a consensus is likely to form, M
requests approval for the plan. She does not speak directly to the
City, rather she speaks to her own delegate - the person she is
voting for in the Mayoral election. In reply she receives a signed
email from the Comptroller of the Parks Department, authorizing a
preliminary safety inspection of the site. M forwards the
authorization to H, who arranges for the actual inspection. When
the inspector arrives, H guides her to the site... And so on.
This illustrates how the interchange (2a') functions with respect to
power. It shows that the medium of assent - particularly the pattern
of vote flow - is the structural *guide* for both the inputs and
outputs of the interchange. This voting pattern guides:
a) communication of actual need (input to government)
b) delivery and application of actual power (output)
Communication of need depends on local connections among the
peripheral delegates M, H and W. More problematically it depends on
remote connections with the center of power - M can effectively lead,
for example, only if she can communicate with City Hall. The people
in the neighbourhood are voting for her because she has proven
*ability*. She turns and uses those votes as leverage to open a
communication channel to central power. She votes for a
super-delegate who has the ability to keep that channel open. In this
way, the structure of assent "feels its way" toward the center, guided
by the structure of power.
Formal power rests with the executive. But that power cannot be
maintained except through the operation of (a) and (b). The Mayor can
effectively govern only if she can coordinate with local needs
throughout the city. The city has thousands of local leaders such as
M, each highly attuned to the needs of their constituencies, and each
receiving hundreds of votes apiece. No Mayor could be elected without
their support. Being unable to communicate directly with them, the
Mayor can only reach out to them by delegating her power to
lieutenants. She carefully selects these lieutenants in consultation
with the central delegates (her immediate voters), each carrying
50,000 or 100,000 votes of assent. And so on - the imperative is
recursive - the central delegates too must delegate their power. In
this way, the structure of power will "feel its way" outward from the
center, guided by the structure of assent.
This assent-mediated coordination of norms (ii) and power (iii) is the
cause of the structural transformation of the public sphere, and of
the modified interchange with government (2a'). The similarities in
their coordination and transformation are striking. Despite their
elemental differences, both norms and power:
* dissolve in the same, simple medium of continuous cascade voting
* break apart and re-distribute outward until they assume the
population structure of the community: the norm into a multitude
of variant textual copies; and power into a multitude of local
leaders (M)
* self-organize into what Abd ul-Rahman Lomax calls "fractal
democracy", a hierarchy of miniature replicas in which every
constituency of interest has its own legislator, and every
neighbourhood its own administration (M, H, W)
Together these arguments (i, ii, iii) seem to indicate a theory of IT
mediated politics. In fact, they seem to be its main pillars. I
guess that's what prompts me to post - whatever flaws or gaps are
found in these arguments, whatever questions they pose, the whole has
a kind of coherence and symmetry - it seems to hold together.
Invitation to the EDem 2008 E-Democracy Conference, Danube University Krems, Austria
From:
noella.edelmann
Date:
Jul 25 08:32 UTC
Short link
EDem 2008 E-Democracy Conference
Danube University Krems, Austria
29-30 September 2008
www.donau-uni.ac.at/edem
We would like to invite you, your students, and readers to attend the EDem 2008
Conference to be held at the Danube University in Krems 29-30 September 2008.
Please forward / post this invitation as you think appropriate!
Keynote Speakers:
*Steven Clift (E-Democracy.org, USA)
*Ann Macintosh (Professor Digital Governance, University of Leeds, UK)
*Jeremy Millard (Danish Insitute of Technology, DK)
*Peter Parycek (Head of the Centre for E-Government, Danube University Krems,
AT)
*Matt Poelmans (Director Burgerlink, NL)
Workshops:
*Making International Recommendations on e-Democracy - Thomas Buchsbaum (CAHDE)
*Case Studies and State of the Art in eParticipation - Ann Macintosh and Jeremy
Millard
*MOMENTUM - Daniel van Lerberge (European Center of Political Technologies,
POLITECH Institute, B )
*Open Source and e-Democracy - Lasse Berntzen (Vestfold University College,
NOR)
Conference Aims:
*To what extent can E-Democracy support and enrich our democracy?
*What and where are the interfaces, what methods can be used to integrate
E-participation in present politics public administration processes?
*How can we ensure that the greatest number of people are reached and are able
to use the means of participation?
*How can the modern media support political education?
*How can the Internet increase participation in political discussion?
*What are the limitations and the risks of E-Democracy?
The EDem2008 conference presents the opportunity to look into these questions
and discuss the answers. During the conference experiences will be collected,
examples good and bad practice analysed, the State-of-the-Art and future
scenarios will be presented and discussed.
More information about the conference, programme and registration:
www.donau-uni.ac.at/edem
I look forward to meeting yoiu there!
Noella Edelmann
Noella Edelmann BA, MSc, MAS
E-Democracy 2008 Conference www.donau-uni.ac.at/edem
Academic Staff
Research
Course Director Executive MBA in ICT
Centre for E-Government
Danube University Krems
Dr.-Karl-Dorrek-Strasse 30, 3500 Krems
Austria
Tel.: +43 2732 893 2303
http://www.donau-uni.ac.at/egov
E-Mail:
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Krisdev
Date:
Jul 23 06:37 UTC
Short link
My reply is as follows:
1. Unique identity for every citizen
2. Citizen to be made aware of all activities / transactions of local
government in a transparent way through Internet, mobile phone, tv,
radio,newspaper, etc.
3. Citizen to have access to information on demand through Internet /
telephone without having to approach officials.
4. Citizens to have easy access to medium of filing petitions through
Internet / telephone.
5. citizens should be able to know the status of the petition online through
Internet / telephone.
6. Citizens should be able to vote on any issue online through Internet /
telephone.
7. Duties and responsibilities of citizens should be made known at all times
through public media.
8. Rights of citizens should be made known through Internet, telephone and
public media.
9. Facilities extended to citizens to lead a peaceful life must be made
known.
10. Score card of performance of public institutions should be widely
publicized.
Kris Dev
e-Gov consultant
India.
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 2:38 AM, Steven Clift <> wrote:
> I recently received a query on the "top ten local governments"
> supporting online transparency, info access, participation. I know of
> no such list much list.
>
> What are your top checklist items that you'd use to compare
> governments/communities more widely in terms of their measurable
> support for e-democracy?
>
> Steven Clift
> E-Democracy.Org
>
> -----------------------------------------
> Group home for E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network:
> http://groups.dowire.org/groups/research
>
> Replies go to members of E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network
> with all posts on this topic here:
> http://groups.dowire.org/r/topic/60RhttdGtLMQZi6MwrtpMg
>
> For digest version or to leave E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers
> Network,
> email
> with "digest on" or "unsubscribe" in the *subject*.
>
> E-Democracy and E-Government Researchers Network is hosted by Democracies
> Online - http://dowire.org.
>
Metrics to judge local e-democracy
From:
Steven Clift
Date:
Jul 22 21:08 UTC
Short link
I recently received a query on the "top ten local governments"
supporting online transparency, info access, participation. I know of
no such list much list.
What are your top checklist items that you'd use to compare
governments/communities more widely in terms of their measurable
support for e-democracy?
Steven Clift
E-Democracy.Org
new research on the politics and public policy of legislative transparency
From:
Jim Snider
Date:
Jul 15 19:54 UTC
Short link
Dear Colleagues:
During Spring Semester 2008, I was a residential fellow at The Shorenstein
Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy, which is located at Harvard's
Kennedy School of Government. Yesterday the Shorenstein Center published my
working paper, Would You Ask Turkeys to Mandate Thanksgiving? The Dismal
Politics of Legislative
Transparency<http://www.hks.harvard.edu/presspol/research_publications/papers/discussion_papers/D46.pdf>.
The paper focuses on online access to roll call votes in the U.S. Congress, the
50 U.S. states, and the 25 largest U.S. cities.
--Jim Snider
J.H. Snider, MBA, Ph.D.
President
iSolon.org
E-Mail: <mailto:>
Web: www.isolon.org<http://www.isolon.org/>
Other:
2008/2009 Rockwood Foundation Fellow in Media, Communications, and Information
Policy
If youre interested in citizens assembly based democratic reform, join the new
Citizens Assembly Facebook
Group<http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=20942842125>.
Interested in eParticipation cases
From:
Eleni Panopoulou
Date:
Jul 01 13:39 UTC
Short link
Thank you all for your interest and support! We will keep in touch for finding
more about all these eParticipation cases.
Eleni