Chang, Shih-Jye

Chen, Hsiang

English

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)

Association for Information SystemsAIS Electronic Library (AISeL)AMCIS 2001 Proceedings Americas Conference on Information Systems(AMCIS)December 2001The Virtual City of Direct DemocracyHsiang ChenI-Shou UniversityShih-Jye ChangI-Shou UniversityFollow this and additional works at: http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2001This material is brought to you by the Americas Conference on Information Systems (AMCIS) at AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). It has been acceptedfor inclusion in AMCIS 2001 Proceedings by an authorized administrator of AIS Electronic Library (AISeL). For more information, please contactelibrary@aisnet.org.Recommended CitationChen, Hsiang and Chang, Shih-Jye, "The Virtual City of Direct Democracy" (2001). AMCIS 2001 Proceedings. 306.http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2001/3062001  Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systems 1595THE VIRTUAL CITY OF DIRECT DEMOCRACYHsiang ChenI-Shou University, Taiwanhschen@isu.edu.twShih-Jye ChangI-Shou University, Taiwanpsjchang@isu.edu.twAbstractThis paper describes the impetus, system designs, and implementation of direct democracy over the Internet.The Web site, named The Virtual City of Direct Democracy, allows Internet participants to actively involvethemselves in policy-making processes of this virtual city, such as proposing issues, setting agendas, sortingout the priority of issues, debating controversial events, promoting proposals, and participating in voting.Registered citizens of this virtual arena may create political parties to promote their proposals. Data collectedfrom this experimental project can be used to observe in a virtual world the rise and fall of public issues,participants utilization of direct democracy, social learning processes, and cooperative relationships betweenpolicy entrepreneurs and the public in agenda setting. Internet as a PropellerDuring the last century, many different formats within the electronic media have been used to test the possibility of directdemocracy in the real world. Telegram, telephone, television, and other similar technologies were employed to construct theutopian dream of direct democracy (Carey 1981). “Electronic democracy,” “teledemocracy,” “televoting,” “electronic townmeetings,” and “teleconferencing” have been used to represent the technology behind this dream, Though these dreams did notcome to full fruition, the technology behind the dream did facilitate solicition of citizens’ opinions and debates, thus improvingthe public policy-making  process (Grosswiler 1998).The development of information and communication technologies (ICTs) during the last ten years has again brought to the desirefor building a network of participatory direct democracy. The Internet and related technology have been considered as a new forcein transforming contemporary political processes  and in promoting communitarian democracy (Abramson, Arterton & Orren,1988). Due to their powerful ability in processing and transmitting information, ICTs were expected to allow citizens to acquire policyinformation with less effort, to participate in public policy-making processes with interactive electronic dialogues, and to debateand compromise with others by suppressing obstacles  of time and space. From researchers’ views, the rise of the Internet thusmay possibly operationalize the utopia dream of participatory direct democracy in the near future.According to research conducted by Rutgers University in 1998, the Internet potentially enhances the democratic process throughits characteristics of interactivity, low cost, speed, and absence of supervision. In addition, the Internet  much more effectivelyfacilitates interpersonal communication than other communication media do, such as radio and TV. The Internet is thereforeexpected to play an important role in issue discussion, communication of opinions, and consensus consolidation. Researchers,such as Strassman (1999) and Westem (1998), believe that the Internet can help solve some  dilemmas faced by contemporarypolitical  systems of “representative democracy” if applied appropriately. Citizens vs.  Policy EntrepreneursScholars in the fields of political science and public policy point out that in a variety of policy domains, “policy entrepreneurs”clarify policy problems and interpret complicated messages for the public (Kingdon, 1995; Schneider, Teske & Mintrom 1995).Policy entrepreneurs also direct the public’s attention toward specific public issues as well as propose solutions. Policyentrepreneurs may be politicians with professional knowledge, executive officials in governments, congressional researchIT Applications1596 2001  Seventh Americas Conference on Information Systemsassistants, academics, policy consultants in non-profit organizations, or professional journalists. In other words, these policy elites,not the general public, guide, control, create and shape the problems, policies, and political streams in liberal democracies(Kingdon  1995). The pubic tend to be treated as passive and ignorant persons, and are excluded from the policy communitiescomposed of those policy elites. Therefore, even citizens with excellent policy solutions may not be able to contribute their ideasto the policy-making process if they do not have access to the policy communities. The power  imbalance in  the real world ofpolitics thus prevents direct public participation in the policy-making processes of modern democracies. The question which lies ahead of us today is: “Will a networked direct democracy system facilitate citizen participation andagenda setting?”  If all networked participants can express their words with equal opportunity and discuss controversial issuesdirectly with policy entrepreneurs, can we expect a significant change in the current policy subsystem (i.e., policy communities)in which policy entrepreneurs control, guide, and shape the policy-making process?  Virtual City of Direct-DemocracyOur research project attempts to answer the above questions. By introducing citizens’ contributions to the policy subsystem whichis traditionally occupied by policy elites or dominated by policy entrepreneurs we want to see whether networked directdemocracy can improve the process of problem-construction, agenda-setting, and alternative-formulation. Our researchincorporates an experimental Web site, named “the Virtual City of Direct Democracy,” built by authors. Internet participants, afterregistration, become citizens of this virtual city. A citizen may submit a variety of issues for discussion in the  virtual city hall,debate with other citizens, actively discuss controversial ideas, rank issues and agendas by importance, and vote on proposals andissues. In this virtual city, a citizen who supports an issue may initiate or participate in a virtual political party. A virtual political partymay recruit party members from registered citizens, promote proposals and issues with party strength, ask contributions fromcitizens, and advertise on the city hall billboard for proposed issues and favored alternatives. Additionally, an electronicnewspaper published by the Virtual City of Direct Democracy will be sent to subscribers. This newspaper covers all politicalactivities around the city, especially events in the virtual city hall. A press center will provide detailed reports, both in the virtualand real worlds, as information sources for all participating citizens.After the structure is completed, the virtual city of direct democracy will operate automatically, with minimal involvement ofresearchers. Researchers only need to maintain the  server, record data, and observe the activities inside the city; they need notactually participate. It is expected that new issues will continually be generated if enough people participate. If new issues arise,new debates and discussions will emerge. If debates are intense enough, political activities in the virtual world should attractenough Internet users willing to revisit the site and to maintain operations of this virtual city. Clearly, the number of participantsdetermines the success of this experimental project. According to our plan, diverse sets of data will be available once the system is available for Internet users. It is expected that ahuge database will be automatically constructed and will allow scholarly analysis. From the recorded dataset, the followingdimensions will be analyzed: 1) problem construction, agenda setting, policy alternative formulation, and agenda transformation;2) construction of debates; 3) rise and fall of virtual political parties; 4) voting behavior; 5) citizens’ diverse participation behavior;6) social learning processes; 7) relationships between policy experts and the public in constructing policy issues.ReferenceAbramson, J.B., Arterton, F.C., and  Orren, G.R. (1988) The Electronic Commonwealth: The Impact of New Media Technologieson Democratic Politics. New York: Basic Books.Carey, James. (1981) McLuhan and Mumford: The roots of modem media analysis. Journal of Communication 31:162-78.Grosswiler, P. (1998) “Historical Hopes, Media Fears, and the Electronic Town Meeting Concept: Where Technology MeetsDemocracy or Demagogy?” Journal of Communication Inquiry, 22(2):133- 152.Kingdon, J.K. (1995) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies, 2 nd edition. New York: Harper Collins.Schneider, M., Teske, P., and Mintrom, M. (1995) Public Entrepreneurs: Agents for Change in American Government. Princeton,N.J.: Princeton University Press.Strassman, M.. (1999) “Could the Internet Change Everything?” The Journal of State Government, 72(3):22- 23.Westen, T. (1998) “Can Technology Save Democracy?” National Civic Review, 87(1): 47-56.

The Virtual City of Direct Democracy

https://aisel.aisnet.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1745&amp;context=amcis2001

The Virtual City of Direct Democracy

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

AIS Electronic Library (AISeL)