Internet and Voter Participation A while back, Microsoft ran an interesting paid advertisement/essay in a number of newspapers entitled, "The Internet and Democracy". It presents a series of statements emphasizing the Internet's increasing role in the interaction between people and government, as well as candidates and the electorate. In particular, the ad emphasizes the notion of the Internet as means for:

• organizing and expressing citizen opinions among the body politic and with elected officials,
• creating forums for accessing and sharing information to help inform civic dialogue,
• provide up to date information to interested citizens to help them better engage on issues that both interest and affect them
• stemming low voter turnout and participation, and exploring online voting as an option, especially since technology is developing to address key concerns around reliability, privacy, security, and equity of access.

All of this goes to say that within even the last two years, we have seen the Internet gradually becoming a medium that facilitates not only political discussion and candidate information provided by media entities and advocacy groups in a broad sense, but a growing number of collaborative efforts, public-private ventures, and free/for-fee entities that seek to educate and engage the public. It seems inevitable, especially if you consider that there were over 120 million active Internet households in the United States as of January 2000, according to NetRatings Voter Education: Who's Going Online? An even more interesting set of numbers comes courtesy of an October 1999 survey conducted for the Democracy Online Project at George Washington University's School of Political Management by Lake Snell Perry and Associates and theTarrance Group. This was a national survey of 1200 Internet users, which found that the more voters were engaged politically, the more likely they were to use the Web in seeking political information, especially as far as independent voters are concerned. About 75% of those surveyed trusted online candidate and campaign information, one-third of politically engaged voters used the Internet to learn more about candidates, and 25% of voters actively using the Internet have conducted candidate research online. Who was most likely to use the Internet for information on politics? Surprisingly (or not), men, people between the ages of50 and 59, politically engaged voters under the age of 30, and college graduates. The survey also found that while there was a great interest in learning more about the workings of government and in directly interacting with government online to address specific issues, the online public prefers to gather their information from neutral sources. The survey found that three-fourths of the respondents were interested in presidential campaign information, two-thirds were interested in statewide and congressional races, one-half in municipal races (including mayoral and city council races) and just under half were interested in information on local races. In addition, 75% of the respondents were interested in both candidates' voting records and locating government information that helps address specific community problems, while 60%wanted to find more information on government programs and services (including voter registration), and ballot initiatives. Basically the more active voters are online the more likely they were find information online. The lowest-ranked type of information? Survey and polling results, campaign donor information, news updates from individual campaigns, information from advocacy groups, and information on public message boards or interactive forums. Online entities that were sponsored in-part or in-full by either churches or state election boards were seen as the most credible sources of information. The next most credible efforts were those sponsored by news and media entities, community-based organizations, and civic groups. The lowest ranked sources of information in terms of credibility were those sponsored directly by a candidate, political parties, issue advocacy groups, and even those sponsored by Internet service providers. The survey also posited a set of "Best Practices" that it identified as crucial to increasing the credibility of any politically-oriented website. These included documenting all information available on a site, developing and enforcing privacy policy, and disclosing the sponsorship of any materials posted online. Those elements that were seen as adding the least amount of credibility (yet potentially adding a marginal amount of credibility) were content that contrasted a candidate or position by way of comparisons as opposed to strong negative or positive contrasts, and interactive features including message boards or chat functions. Grassroots.com So where exactly does one go to find political information online? One website that has received probably the largest amount of attention recently is Grassroots.com, a non-partisan joint for-profit and nonprofit online venture that seeks to use the Internet to make it easier for people to be politically active. The main thrust of Grassroots.com is to create an online space for activists, citizens, and political types to learn about the issues, organize support, and take action. The service is free to citizens, but will charge a fee to advocacy groups, lobbyists, and advertisers to put materials online. It also scored a major coup earlier this month by acquiring the Democracy Network (DNet), a joint effort of the League of Women Voters Education Fund (LWVEF) and the Center for Government Studies (CGS). By way of background, The League of Women Voters (LWV) is a nonpartisan political organization that, since 1920, has worked to encourage active citizen participation in public policy through voter education activity. LWVEF, since its start in 1957, increases understanding of major public policy issues through voter guides, candidate forums, town meetings, and community and leader debates. CGS, a nonpartisan organization, designs and helps implement innovative approaches to improve the process of media and governance, and also works in substantive areas of campaign finance, ballot initiatives, digital divide, higher education, health care and state and local finance. DNet was launched by CGS in 1996, and uses creative interactive web technology to spark online candidate debates and improve the quality and quantity of voter information. DNet allows the user to become the online "moderator" of candidate debates, in which the user selects the candidates and the issues of interest. Since then, DNet has provided in-depth coverage of hundreds of campaigns including Presidential and congressional races, state-level elections, local office contests, and ballot initiatives via a searchable online database of text and multimedia content. This tool gives voters access to the latest campaign information provided by the candidates themselves (including positions on important issues presented in a comparison grid, biographical and donor information, and endorsements); online interaction and debate among candidates, elected officials, community leaders, and other voters; and links to vital voter, campaign and media information. DNet increases voter understanding of important public policy problems, allows candidates to debate their positions in an "electronic town hall" before an online audience, and fosters greater civic participation and interaction between voters and candidates. Addressing concerns about the credibility and integrity of nonprofit involvement with a for-profit entity, Grassroots.com gave both LWVEF and CGS seats on the Board of Directors, the founder and former president of CGS was made chairman of Grassroots.com, and Grassroots.com pledged to make unrestricted cash contributions to LWVEF and CGS to further their educational missions. Grassroots.com will utilize the 1,100 local LWV chapters to collect candidate statements and information. Building upon the groundwork of DNet, it will offer online candidate debates, voter-candidate interactions and electoral information accessible by zip code, in an attempt to cover some 120,000 elections from the Presidential races down to local school-board contests. In addition to some serious nonprofit firepower, Grassroots.com has secured over USD$35 million in venture capital funding. Grassroots.com has a pretty formidable board of advisors, including Mike McCurry (former White House Press Secretary to President Clinton), John Sununu (former chief of staff to President Bush and former New Hampshire governor), Tony Blankley (former press secretary to ex-House speaker Newt Gingrich), Geraldine Ferraro (1984 Democratic vice presidential candidate) and a number of powerful lobbyist and campaign strategists. Directors include Condoleezza Rice (top advisor to Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush), Matt Fong(former Democratic California state treasurer); and John Young(former CEO of Hewlett-Packard Co.) The features it hopes will help users accomplish this goal is the capacity, from a single website, to:

• create proposals that can be voted upon,
• join or create an online affinity group,
• donate to a cause or an individual candidate,
• research candidates or issues of local, state, or national significance,
• set up or participate in online discussion boards or live online chats,
• develop strategy tools, interest group newsletters, and customized elected official contact manager, and
• locate and contact elected officials, media outlets

In addition to user created content, Grassroots.com also gathers original and syndicated content (leaning towards local issues) from major newspaper syndicates, its own syndicated CNET radio show, and DNet's electoral and candidate information, in addition to a range of partnerships with companies like National Journal and Capitol Advantage (the nation's largest publisher of printed and online Congressional directories, and also the provider of mechanisms that generated some 5 million unique e-mail messages sent to elected officials and government agencies from a variety of political and advocacy Web sites that use Capitol Advantage software). Newer Commercial Political Resources There are a number of newer online political information and voter education websites that have come about recently, including: The Freedom Channel: An interesting nonpartisan commercial venture that uses the Internet to provide 90-second video clips of presidential, gubernatorial, and congressional candidates. The idea is that the on-demand video clips allow candidates to have a fair chance at presenting their views to an online audience. Uninteresting feature is the ability to view and hear head-to-head clips, candidate views on issues, campaign ads sponsored byte candidates themselves, their parties and issue advocacy groups. Politicalwag.com: This is a free online town hall in which users can generate online discussions via sophisticated message boards, which are in turn hosted by expert moderators-- regular citizens who both are politically active and experienced in moderating online discussions. SelectSmart: The latest variation on candidate scorecards that lets individuals see how well candidates match up according to personal views on key policy issues. SelectSmart is actually aside with a variety of "selectors" or interactive quizzes that help users make decisions about (presidential candidates, dog breeds, or food, for example). All you do is answer some questions about your preferences, and the decision is made for you. Try out the various political selectors(you might be surprised at the results for your preferred presidential candidate!). Custom selectors can be set up (at fair market price) for just about any issue or group. SpeakOut.com: This site, officially launched in January of this year, operates as a site to gather public opinions and let people voice their views on politicians and current issues. The idea is that visitors will read about current events or policy issues, while voluntarily participating in online polls and surveys. The results of the surveys (not personal information (will then be sold to interest campaigns and elected officials. Given the skepticism as to the accuracy of online polling samples, and the operational issues involving data privacy, this effort has generated a bit of controversy. Advisors include Tom Downey and Susan Molinari (ex-House members), Jack Quinn (White House counsel) and Michael Deaver (former deputy in the Reagan White House). USA democracy.com: This is an interesting resource for tracking bills in Congress. You can view not only the regular information about legislation, but also review bill summaries in non-legalistic English, coupled with relevant news and perspectives from advocacy organizations. Users are invited to vote on bills that interest them, and after each vote, your elected officials' vote on that bill are tracked, they receive an e-mail message in your name alerting them to your opinions, and determines a percentage rating reflecting the comparison between both their vote and yours. Some of the advisors to this effort include James Carville, Geraldine Ferraro, Jack Buechner (former congressman from Missouri), and Ralph Reed (founder of the Christian Coalition). Vote.com: This is an online ballot box designed to give Internet users a chance to voice their opinions on current public policy issues. The hook is that whenever you vote on any topic on this site, it immediately sends an e-mail in your name to your congressional representative, Senators, and the President reflecting your views. Vote.com was created by former Clinton strategist Dick Morris and his wife, Eileen McGann. Votenet: VoteNet, in essence, is an aggregator of online political content that touts itself as both a nonpartisan resource for voters, and hosting service for individual candidate Web pages. VoteNet's parent company, Netivation, has been busy acquiring a number of Internet political services to assemble a pretty robust online service. It's strongest selling point is the ability to research news and events, Federal Election Commission data on contributors for both managing an individual campaign (or monitoring a rival campaign), access to a search engine of campaign video clips, political news of interest to minorities, Web site hosting, online fundraising and grassroots campaign management tools, and legislative and legislator databases.VoteNet has, however, generated some controversy due to its operational model which lets it host and accept paid advertising from individual candidate websites that the parent company has consulted on. The concern is that in driving online users to seemingly neutral political information, it is in reality diverting users to preferred candidate sites. [VoteNet also recently announced an agreement with Microsoft to launch a "Political Pulse" resource on Microsoft's MSN Politics Channel. This arrangement will put VoteNet content on various MSN properties, including newsletter content delivered via MSN's Hotmail e-mail service, MSNBC and Slate online magazine. ] Voter.com: This site lets you view political news and issues customized to your tastes, while comparing your views with those of the candidates. This site is the creation of Craig Smith (former White House political director), Celinda Lake (President of Lake Snell Perry, which conducted the Democracy Online survey), and Randy Tate (former House member and former Christian Coalition executive), among others. Nonprofit Political Resources There is also a number of interesting nonprofit and not-for-profit voter education resources of note.

• Alliance for Better Campaigns: a nonpartisan public interest group seeking to promote political campaigns rooted in civic discourse as opposed to negative attack advertising and sound bites, through (among other things) proposed nightly televised issue forums involving candidates broadcast during news programs 30 days before an election. The website contains issue briefs which serve as a useful reference to different elements of existing campaigns, a set of case studies, and a small but useful set of links to civic and reform groups, state public interest research groups, political news, and political portals.
• C-SPAN provides a searchable video archive of candidate statements, to which a number of online media efforts are linking.
• For a good example of a state-level voting guide, check out the California Voter Foundation's Online Voter Guide. This is the sixth year that this nonpartisan effort has provided an online resource to educate voters about the state's Primary Election (this year March 7). In addition to covering 174 contests within the state, this effort also provides information on the 20 propositions coming up forums vote during the March ballot. There are links to official campaign sites, contact information, and contribution information. The site is free, accessible 24 hours a day, and supports no advertising, funded only through foundation and member support. CVF's guide will be updated throughout the2000 election season, and will incorporate features like a listing of the major contributors for and against each proposition.
• Issues2000: This not-for-profit effort provides information mostly on Presidential candidates, via a number of features, including the most recent candidate quotations on 23 major issues in the form of an issue grid, candidate headlines, press quotes, primary schedules (with voting results), a voter matching quiz(similar to Smart Select), and a list of political links. Though a very rudimentary looking site, it is a scrappy do-it-yourself effort, with all the information is gathered by volunteers from newspapers, speeches, press releases, and the Internet.
• Minnesota E-Democracy: Since 1994, this nonpartisan citizen-based nonprofit project has been working to improve participation in democracy and real world governance via elections and public discourse in Minnesota through the use of information networks and communication technologies. Minnesota E-Democracy consists of e-mail discussion groups, interactive political forums connecting citizens with elected officials, and 24-hourreal-time discussion space. One of the interesting things is the emphasis on processes for fostering participation.
• NetElection.org: This online resource (a joint Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, in cooperation with the Center for Governmental Studies and the Center for Public Integrity)explores the role of the Internet in American political campaigns. Some features of note include: a customizable bibliography of material relating to Analytical Studies, Cyberdemocracy, Digital Policy, Empirical Studies, and Website Design, an interactive grid comparing presidential primary candidate website features, and commentary on individual campaigns.
• Project Vote Smart: an online library of information on over13,000 candidates for public office, including candidates for President, governor, congressional races, and state legislatures. Candidates are profiled with respect to their backgrounds, issue positions, voting records, campaign finances and the performance evaluations (based on ratings gleaned from 80 conservative to liberal special interests groups). In addition to specific voter registration information for each state, there is an online database of Presidential candidate public statements, issue statements, and position papers, searchable by individual candidates or by issue. Users can also track the status of legislation and spending bills in Congress, state-level political news and ballot measures. Project Vote Smart, moreover, offers a Voter's Research Hotline to make online information available by telephone to any interested users.
• Youthvote2000: This is reportedly the largest non-partisan coalition of national organizations committed to encouraging civic participation among America's youth. In addition to an impressive array national nonprofit, civic, and community-based organization networks, the coalition will work to demand accountability by politicians on issues of importance to young people.

So Who Wins? Are voters better served by a nonprofit or for-profit political portal, especially during a politically active season of campaigns and contests? This may not be a fair question or at least phrasing of the question, but the idea that nonprofits are the sole source of reliable, objective, credible, and relevant information to educate and encourage voter education and participation raises a number of issues. As the Democracy Online survey points out, however, neither "nonprofit" nor "commercial" guarantees immediate acceptance by the online voting public. Nonprofits have traditionally played a role in either educating voters about the general process, highlighting candidate positions and voting records, educating the public about those positions in the context of broader policy issues, and in many instances, enabling grassroots efforts in support of (or in opposition to) those positions. Buried somewhere in the mix of public policy activities, however, is the belief that some (or all) nonprofits and all corporate backed efforts have a hidden agenda at best, or reattempting to force ideas upon voters at worst. It's not hard to trace the origins of such thoughts. There are decisions and biases made about online political content, ranging from the level and quality of editorial context or commentary, public response mechanisms, the web links included or not included, and the level of background and reference information around an issue or a candidate. Even more important is the notion that we are choosing candidates or positions from a predetermined number of options that merit our attention. This is much different that weeding out candidates and positions by consuming the best information available. A number of voters are content with sticking to their beliefs and not being influenced by any outside forces. Others choose their sources on the basis of a myriad of personal preferences. In any event, active consumption of information requires, in part, a well-formed base of content sources and options for one to consume. The burden would seem to be on the content providers to, in essence, "do a better job." This, however, places too much responsibility (and potentially decision making authority) in the hands of the media and other related entities, a complaint that already is widespread. Those who consider this the source of our voter malaise would do well to remember that most voter-targeted and election-related content itself comes from government filings and candidates themselves. At best, a cynical view would hold that all any nonprofit or commercial entity does is provide a value-added service to the content, in the form of a scorecard, comparison analysis, commentary, in-depth reporting, background information, or some form of interactivity between voters and elected officials. To be fair, ask how many media outlets (or nonprofits for that matter) have the resources, ability, and inclination to report on all the candidates running for president this year? Even if they did, would there be sufficient interest among voters to know who these people are? Does the electorate even know how many people declared their candidacy for president? 10? 40?80? How do we know if they are serious candidates worthy of our speculation, consideration, or inquiry? [NOTE: Thanks to Project Vote Smart, we actually some 150 registered candidates for president!] Nonprofits are also under great pressure to provide quality, reliability, integrity, and credibility in the information they generate and to which they provide voters access. Because they may very well lack the resources (especially time and money) to compete with the newer commercial ventures in the areas of content gathering, partnerships and sponsorships, and providing effective mechanisms to engage voters online, the landscape is much different. So maybe the consumers of political and voter information should assume more responsibility. If the information voters need is readily accessible from non-online sources-- state election boards, alternative and mainstream media sources, and political events-- one could make the case that the information is there, ready to be consumed by an informed and engaged electorate who already knows where to find it, much like the Internet users surveyed in the Democracy Online study. But we know with the oft-cited statistics on low voter turnout and voter apathy, that the electorate is not as informed nor engaged as it could be. Then, does it matter who is providing the information so moch as who is there to receive and act upon it? Assuming there is a great market of voters to consume information on this most vital aspect on our social and political life, what do they expect of the information available to them? Would they prefer the best selection of information, the best quality of information, the best amount of information, the best access to information, or the ability to find what is relevant and useful to them? Assuming all four are important, how would they know if and when these needs are being met, either online or in the real world? That said, does a commercial venture into territory once deemed exclusive to nonprofits signal the "selling" of the public political process, or a step towards enhancing civic participation? Another, possibly more productive way to think about it, borrowing again from Steve Clift, is to look at what developments in this area of public policy ultimately yield for voters and participants in civic discourse. Will we see now or in the future:

• more citizen engagement on the issues of concern at local, state, and national level?
• increased access to more and better information on the candidates, policy positions, and government decisions that affect us?
• a greater sense of accountability on the part of elected officials for the decisions they make?
• pressure on all entities from news to advocacy groups that inform the public to provide the best quality information?
• greater civic participation and collaboration from all entities and institutions, including business, that affect the political landscape?

It is with regard to the last question that the greatest room for partnership, collaboration (and potentially revenue) rests. We do not lack for sources of voter-related content. What we are still missing as Clift and a number of others have pointed out, are strong, reliable, engaging mechanisms that facilitate, encourage, and complement online interaction among citizens, between citizens and government, citizens and candidates, and between candidates themselves. If the perfect technology were developed, it would still require institutional knowledge, experience, and the right kind of marketing to the public for them to embrace and utilize it to its fullest potential. This will not be something that commercial ventures can or will learn overnight, but have shown a willingness to undertake. Nonprofits, similarly, cannot generate the monetary or staff resources necessary to build such mechanisms and sustain them permanent basis. There is, however, potential benefit in collaborative activity between the two actors. From a commercial standpoint, it makes sense to draw upon the widest base of quality content that nonprofits produce, as it enhances their credibility. Nonprofits also potentially stand to benefit from some arrangements, not only by attracting financial support to assist them in their missions, but also by raising the visibility, potentially reaching audiences they might not otherwise. This is not to say that there are not real issues to consider with the potential for increased nonprofit and for-profit convergence. There is genuine concern among some nonprofits that as more for-profits enter the civic participation arena as the providers of increasingly exclusive and ubiquitous access points to important information, these same actors (and whatever preferred nonprofit partners may be engaged) will be in a position to determine the viability, usefulness, and value of particular civic participation vehicles based on revenue potential, not civic value. Resources Cited Microsoft Essay NetRatings Democracy Online Project at George Washington University School of Political Management Grassroots.com Democracy Network Freedom Channel Politicalwag.com SelectSmart SpeakOut.com USA democracy.com Vote.com VoteNet Voter.com Alliance for Better Campaigns C-SPAN Campaign 2000 California Voter Foundation's Online Voter Guide Issues2000 Minnesota E-Democracy NetElection.org Project Vote Smart Youthvote2000