While calls intensify for the sitting Governor of Illinois to resign after being charged with attempting to sell President-elect Barack Obama’s Senate seat, we are yet reminded how backroom style politics can threaten our Democracy.
Fortunately, Internet technology trends and best practices give us glimpes into ways government can be more open, accessible and accountable to “We the People”.
I want to take one step further and suggest that government shouldn’t just be accountable to “We the People”. Rather, “We the People” should enable good public policy and government.
The Wisdom of Crowds
By “crowd” I mean average, ordinary citizens in a Democracy are are authorized by our Constitution to ensure that government remains “For the People, of the People, and by the People”.
And there’s abundant proof that “we” generally get it right.
In James Surowiecki’s book, “The Wisdom of Crowds”, the author cites the once popular game show, “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”, as evidence of the wisdom in crowds.
On the game show, the contestant was asked a question from the host. If he or she didn’t know the answer, the person could ask a lifeline.
Studies from the game show indicated that the lifeline gave the right answer 68% of the time. But when the contestant “polled” the studio audience, the crowd got it right 92% of the time!
The Crowd gets it Right
Wikipedia is the sixth most popular Web site on the planet. Here, average, ordinary people can participate and create terms and definitions.
Forget the expert’s definitions on Encylopedia Brittanica, users seem to prefer the collective judgments of millions of people who contribute to Wikipedia.
And if you are not sure, look up Carlifornia’s Proposition 8 on Wikipedia.
You’ll probably be suprised how such a contentious issue could be handled in a fair, balanced and objective way - by the crowd.
Our Founders who loved “checks and balances” - as much as our Democracy - would probably have loved Wikipedia!
Wikipedia is Adam Smith’s ”invisible hand” applied to content creation!
The Crowd makes it Work
Google is the most popular search engine on the planet. Why?
Robert Hof in Business Week’s famous article, “The Power of Us” says that “….this ace search engine essentially polls the collective judgments of millions of Web page creators to determine the most relevant search results.”
Hof cites countless examples of big businesses lke Dow Chemical, Procter and Gamble, Amazon, and Sony are leveraging the wisdom of it’s crowds of customers, partners and employees.
His advice? “All of us will have to take on more responsibility. And to get the most out of the new cooperative tools and services, we’ll have to contribute our time and talent in new ways — such as rating a seller on eBay or penning a short essay in Wikipedia. But the rewards will be more personalized products and services that we don’t merely consume, but help create.”
The Crowd shapes the News
Forrester, a respected IT research organization, recently released “Groundswell - Winning in a World Transformed by Social Technologies“.
They argue that organizations “can’t control users looking to utilize Web 2.0 technologies such as blogs, wikis and social networks”. Instead, “…CIOs and other business leaders must embrace these technologies in the enterprise, and enable their employees to share and work collectively with each other to foster new innovations.”
They cite Digg.com as proof that organizations are no longer in charge of their message - people are.
On Digg, users submit news stories, “Digg” the ones they like, and the most popular news stories then “bubble up” to the top.
Granted, Digg news article are a little too liberal for some people. But that’s not the point because you can have - and do have - online community for liberals, conservatives or independent-minded people. (e.g. Salon, Townhall, Drudge, etc.)
The point is that Digg raises a more fundamental question,
“Who should create, shape and influence the news of the day? Media outlets - or the crowd?”
Stephen Baker and Heather Green in “Blogs will change your Business” argue for media outlets to give up controlling the message. Why?
”…we mainstream types control an ever-smaller chunk of human knowledge. Some of us will work to draw in more of what the bloggers know, vetting it, editing it, and packaging it into our closed productions. But here’s betting that we also forge ahead in the open world. The measure of success in that world is not a finished product. The winners will be those who host the very best conversations (italics added).
The Crowd will Engage
“Dellideastorm.com” provides one of the most practical methods ways businesses can “host” a conversation, and proves that the crowd will engage.
Here any user can register, login and submit an idea. The crowd reviews your idea and then either promotes or demotes it.
Unlike command-and-control organizations typifying corporate America, your ability to contribute online isn’t dictated by your title, position or even the mood of your boss!
How liberating is that!
Dellideastorm began when Dell realized that they couldn’t really anticipate everything their customers wanted. And so they decided to do the obvious - they asked them.
To date, this community has submitted nearly 11,000 ideas, promoted over 620,000 of them, and posted over 83,000 comments!
The Crowd wants Convenience
The question is if this same consumer-driven enthusiasm can carry over into citizen-driven politics.
I believe it’s not a matter of “if” but “when”.
Some elected officials may counter that citizens don’t attend city council meetings, and then get an earful when a referendum that raises taxes passes after those same citizen’s voted for it!
But that is not entirely the fault of the voter. In many cities, citizens still have to drive down to the city just to see what is on the agenda is for the upcoming city council meeting. Why?
The best Web 2.0 sites already use opt-in e-mail alerts, RSS feeds or subscription based newsletters to let their users know instantly of new or updated news and information.
Citizens should expect similar easy and convenient tools to know what is on the agenda at their city council meeting, or what is being discussed in committees at the Capitol.
In other words, what some may perceive as citizen apathy may be due to lack of convenience rather than lack of interest.
I can easily access up-to-date, rich and engaging content on Wikipedia, Dellideastorm or Google from my home. And typically the information is in plain English.
To the contrary, some citizens feel like they need a lawyer to understand a bond proposal or ballot initiative.
The Crowd is Smart
The ability for the crowd to get it right is even more remarkable when you consider that the average citizen still fails a basic civics and history test (Of course, if you notice, the self described elected officials actually did worse in this national study).
But you can’t explain away the wisdom of crowds phenomena because the “man on the street” doesn’t get it.
The point is that we collectively we tend to get it right even if we individually have a lot to learn. That’s the message from Wikipedia, Dellideastorm, Digg and many other social networking sites.
In other words, when it comes to getting it right, the sum intelligence of the crowd is greater than it’s individual parts.
Surowiecki’s concludes that, “….crowds can go mad, of course, but by and large, it turns out, they’re smarter at solving many problems than even the brightest individuals.”
If you Build it, the Crowd will Come
To be clear, the crowd does not exclude elected official. In fact, the crowd includes them, as well as the citizens.
And despite my fascination of collective intelligence, in my heart I am still a believer in a Representative Republic.
The points is not to strip our elected officials of their ability to raise ideas themselves, research issues, or even be the only ones to vote on the actual legislation.
I am merely arguing for much greater input from citizens, and the opportunity to engage much more effectively with their elected officials and government.
A Better Way to make a Sausage
Before the bill can have a chance to become a law, it has to make it on the legislative agenda, be taken up by a committee or two, and then comes to a vote.
Some have compared it to “making a sausage” because the process may be tainted by special interest influence, back room deal making, and too little public scrutiny.
But what if the public set the agenda? Imagine if citizens had a “one stop shop” where they could submit ideas, rate them and see which ones would likewise “bubble up” to the top.
That is the vision of http://www.utahvoters.org
It would not only provide aggregated news content about Utah anything. But it will also enable user generated content news by giving citizens the ability to submit Internet stories they see as newsworthy.
In the “Power of Us”, the author cits C.K Prahalad, a University of Michigan School of Business professor, and co-author of the 2004 book The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers. He says,
“We are seeing the emergence of an economy of the people, by the people, for the people.”
If that is the case, then why shouldn’t those trends carry over into how public policy is shaped, influenced and decided?
We are Who We’ve Been Waiting For
Whether you agree with his politics or not, I believe that Obama’s rise to prominance can largely be explained that he tapped into the heart and mind of much of the crowd.
How? By inviting them into the process.
On his campaign stumps, he repeated the phrase, “We are who we’ve been waiting for”.
He wasn’t creating a campaign. He created a movement that may likely outlast his presidency. Clearly, it serves as a prototype to tap into the passions of ordinary Americans.
Think of it. Giving people convenient access to online tools which gives them a voice could fundamentally change how government is run.
· Entrepenuers experienced in job creation would have a greater say in our current econoic crisis and likely advocate free market principles instead of government bailouts.
Wouldn’t they know more about job creation than a legislator in Washington who may never had a job in the private sector?
· Successful business owners engaged and collaborating online might suggest the idea of using open source technology to save government agencies money.
Do we expect government beaurocracies to be completely objective in coming up with the best ideas when doing so might impose necessary spending limits on themselves or their departments?
· Ordinary school teachers -Democrats and Republicans - having worked in the classroom undoubtedly have seen the pros and cons of the current “No Child Left Behind” law.
Why aren’t they the best ones to offer a revised bill that really help lawmakers craft laws that ensure that no children will ever be left behind.
In addition, it’s likely that the right right laws would be passed without the devil being in the details.
Utahvoters.org
Web 2.0 is disrupting organizations everywhere because it’s tapping into all of our collective creativity, innovation and genious.
Eventually, I envision Utah citizens will be able to share news stories or , like Digg.com, submit news stories themselves.
These stories could really take the form of a policy, bills or legislation which could then bubble up to the top as citizens and elected officials commented, voted and collaborated together.
While it’s still in development even though it’s accessible online, http://www.utahvoters.org could be the means to unleash the power of us. And why not?
In another Business Week article called “It’s a Whole New Web”, Hof, the author, calls Web 2.0 technologies “the second coming of the Web”.
Why? “It’s no longer all about idly surfing and passively reading, listening, or watching. It’s about doing: sharing, socializing, collaborating, and, most of all, creating.”, he says.
Social software like UtahVoters.org can break down the cultural or political barriers which have kept citizens and their elected officials at arm’s length.
But now it’s time we work hand-in-hand.
That’s Democracy in action.
And it makes sense because we are really smarter than me!