Public Input and Public Policy
Getting nuanced public input on complex policy issues is difficult. The Internet could facilitate such input, but I don’t think it’s there yet. Effective models need to be created to involve people in the decision-making process in a more comprehensive way.
Is anyone aware of good models that exist to significantly involve the public in legislative decision making? For example, I’m looking for something (online or offline) where citizens are actively involved in defining pressing issues, delineating the variables and options concerning those issues, and putting together proposed solutions that could attract a majority of votes by decision makers. (I’m thinking these models might exist in smaller decision-making bodies, like towns, service organizations or homeowners associations).
In particular, I ask this in the aftermath of Congress’s dismal failure on immigration. I think the feds missed the relevant issues, the possible solutions and, of course, the comprehensive package. When their pre-baked solution got to the people, the people rejected it. The same might be said about Iraq; Democrats swept the elections, based on Iraq, but haven't done anything with the issue since they took power.
A good model, though, could apply to any issue under the sun, not just immigration or Iraq.
Thoughts?
Is anyone aware of good models that exist to significantly involve the public in legislative decision making? For example, I’m looking for something (online or offline) where citizens are actively involved in defining pressing issues, delineating the variables and options concerning those issues, and putting together proposed solutions that could attract a majority of votes by decision makers. (I’m thinking these models might exist in smaller decision-making bodies, like towns, service organizations or homeowners associations).
In particular, I ask this in the aftermath of Congress’s dismal failure on immigration. I think the feds missed the relevant issues, the possible solutions and, of course, the comprehensive package. When their pre-baked solution got to the people, the people rejected it. The same might be said about Iraq; Democrats swept the elections, based on Iraq, but haven't done anything with the issue since they took power.
A good model, though, could apply to any issue under the sun, not just immigration or Iraq.
Thoughts?
posted by steve u. at 7/25/2007
Subscribe
4 Comments:
You pose a good question and I'm not sure I have a good answer. In the making of public policy, there are alot of historical practices that have a momentum of their own. Lobbyists gain access to the process to protect or promote the interests of whomever they are representing. That their influence is significant can't be doubted.
What you seem to be asking for is a means by which there can be effective grass-roots access to policy making, by-passing that current influence matrix. The internet helps. But for those who are still learning how to effectively utilize this tool, is their viewpoint and considerations being missed? Can legislation negatively effect people who are unaware and not able to have an appropriate hearing? I'm sure it happens. I'll have to give some thought to the question you pose because I think it is a good one.
If we want to create a new vehicle for political discussion, we need to understand what mediums we already have and why they are unsatisfactory. I can see four major defining aspects of political media.
1. Agenda-setting power: who decides what is discussed?
2. Commentary: who is allowed to publish unique input?
3. Accessibility: how convenient is it to read and/or contribute?
4. Clout: how much political pull does the medium command? Is the discussion being heard by decision-makers, or does it influence voting behavior?
I've just been mentally running through a few of the established means this morning to see how they stack up. For example, the newspaper.
----------------
Newspaper
Agenda: Editors. They choose which articles are published, which are seen prominently, what headline they carry, and what the official position of the publication is.
Commentary: Filtered and heavily edited public letters.
Accessibility: Delivered to your door, on internet, or found in public bathroom stall. Contribution dependant upon literacy.
Political clout: Depends on the publication. Due to a strong legacy in our country, newspapers are generally respected and can define public opinion.
----------------
It's an interesting exercise because it highlights shortcomings in what we have. Another quick example, Politicopia.
Agenda: Registered users. Anyone with a username can edit the main page and add new issues.
Commentary: Unfiltered comments, agenda and issue editing subject to public consensus (the whole wiki "mass authorship" principle).
Accessibility: Internet connection required to read. Tech-savvy needed to learn wiki interface (a major shortcoming).
Clout: Steve once mentioned that a few legislators told him that they had formed opinions due to its discussion. How widespread did it get? I'm not sure.
So, we can kind of get a sense. We need a system that has the accessibility of a newspaper (i.e. ease of use and contribution), and the public control of a wiki. Wikis have great potential, but the user base will always be limited to techies.
I have a proposal, but it would be impossible to communicate in the comments section of a blog. Let me flesh out my ideas, and we'll talk.
P.S. Another quick analysis for intellectual stimulation.
----------------
Committee Hearing
Agenda: Committee chair. He/she decides what is discussed, period.
Commentary: Legislators subject to being recognized by chair. Public commentary portion limited to whims of chair and popularity of issue. However, public input can also be received by lawmakers through e-mail, personal visits, lobbying, etc.
Accessibility: Internet broadcasts allow voters to listen from anywhere, but how many do? Newspaper reports about hearings are heavily edited. Public can contribute by physically going to the Capitol, or through correspondence.
Clout: Almost the ultimate in clout. Discussion and subsequent votes dictate public policy.
What other aspects define the effectiveness of a discussion medium?
Two words:
TERM LIMITS
Andrew,
Thanks for playing, but we value dialogue here. Please buzz in again, and share your thoughts on how term limits improve things.
From my perspective (having been in 8 years and just starting to know my way around), term limits (as you see in California) mean less public involvement; staffers and insiders with institutional knowledge run things, and they never have to stand before the people.
Post a Comment
<< Home