Jackson Free Press

Here's an interesting Washington Post piece on tech in politics and a little hint as to why the Dean campaign apparatus allows a smaller "third party" organization to organize politically. Could the Internet spells doom for the two-party "duopoly"?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A58554-2003Dec12.html

I think the fundamental flaw in the piece is that it's hard to imagine third-party winners without some additional election reforms (ballot access, instant run-off elections, etc.), but the idea that an insurgency campaign could win a plurality in a more fractured election is food for thought. Of course, that would be interesting from an Electoral College point of view -- if there were viable third-party candidates in the race, the popular vote and EC vote would likely run amok of one another even more often.

Previous Comments

ID

136814

Comment

Could the Internet spell doom for the two-party "duopoly"? We can pray. Even back during the dot-com madness, I always thought that the role of the Internet would play out to be something much less about profits and much more about grass-roots connections that bypass the media gatekeepers, which firmly help keep the duopoly in place. And when those media gatekeepers are corporate conglomerates, we have to have an end run around them. No matter what ultimately happens to Dean's campaign, it's so refreshing to see such a cross-section of Americans coming together and using the Internet as a tool for organizing -- and without asking anyone for permission. It's lovely.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-16T13:01:23-06:00

ID

136815

Comment

I've been keeping my eyes peeled for research on this topic. My own perspective is a mixture of optimism and cynicism. On the one hand, I'm really tired of being told about the internet's 'transformative' powers. And, I don't think that, single handedly, the internet will cause the downfall of the 2 party system. On the other hand, I do think that there is, and will continue to be, a rise in the number of people who get more and more of their news from internet sources, and less and less from the major media outlets. I know that the only TV news I get is The Daily Show, the only radio news is public radio. For the rest, if there's an issue I'm interested in, I love to go search the 'net and find as many conflicting, wildly divergent pieces as I can. My perception is that more and more people are doing that, mostly because they are dissatisfied with the media congomerates, and their 'reporting' practices. But, then I realize that internet access is still an expensive way to get your news, and that the % of people who do what I do is probably an incredibly teeny minority. So - I'd dearly love to know if anyone is out there tracking the media habits of the average consumer, and see what kind of people are rejecting TV and radio in favor of more interactive (and in many cases, more unreliable) sites on the internet. That being said, I do think that the politicians are finally starting to grasp the significance of the internet simply as an organizing and communications tool, which I do think will have an impact on politics for a long time to come. I just don't think it will rid us of the 2 party system. But, in the meantime, it is making the campaigns far more interesting.

Author

kate

Date

2003-12-16T13:36:54-06:00

ID

136816

Comment

I just don't think it will rid us of the 2 party system. Kate, I don't, either. But I do think it *may* be one of the tools in the arsenal. There's never only one answer to any problem, and the first person to distrust is the one who says there is. So please don't think I'm saying that. ;-D But I hear you on the route it provides around media dumbed down for stupid people (real or imagined; the irony, of course, is that most people are probably smarter than the corporate media give them credit for). Sure, there's plenty of stupid stuff online, but there are links to all sorts of primary sources, so that we don't only have the choice of taking what the media conglomerates say as the whole story. That's probably my favorite use of the Internet.

Author

ladd

Date

2003-12-16T13:47:53-06:00

ID

136817

Comment

Donna, since you and Todd both said you don't think it's the one single thing that will kill the 2 party system, I don't think you're saying that. Although, my post was not a model of clarity, so you may not know what I think. I've been idly pondering this topic for a few weeks now, and really what I've been looking for is primary research on the impact of the internet on both political campaigns and on national media outlets. I'd love to know if anyone out there is doing any long term research on the topic, and if there's any data, especially segmented by age, race, gender, income, politcal leanings, etc. I've seen some anecdotal stuff, but nothing that seems truly substantive. But it may be too early to get real measurements.

Author

kate

Date

2003-12-16T14:36:35-06:00

ID

136818

Comment

I don't kow of any hard-and-fast studies, but Magazine Publishers of America has done a few that show that not nearly as many people watch TV as mainstream media keeps telling us. Print media is apparently much more effective than TV at least in part bc there is a perception that anything on TV--even the news--should be viewed with some degree of cynicism because of ratings races.

Author

Nia

Date

2003-12-16T15:30:05-06:00