Why hasn't the increasing use of social networking tools led to greater democracy and increased voter participation?

Discussion initiated by Cathy McLennan.  Group particpants were Joseph Fung, Jane Mitchelll, Heike Mertins, Catherine Sopiet,

First off participants went around the circle and introduced themselves. We want to question the fundamental underlying concept to this question. Is it true that these tools increase democracy and participation? How do we make change through new media? Many politicians in the group! Politicians are interested in tech savy people as they seem to be more aware of the social and environmental issues, but they don't vote. Many participants are also active in social media campaigns; using it as a tool for social change. i.e. Catherine Sopiet who is using social engagement as a strategy for post-secondary offsets-- getting credit for being involved and engaged. Marc argues that a medium is not inherently democratic.

More information does not mean more democracy. Voting usually comes from lived experience, loyalty, etc. There are a lot of factors going on, democracy on a global level is declining. Politican activism online often acts as a surrogate for real life activism. Jane asks are you talking about democracy, or why don't people vote. They're two different things. As an elected official she sees democracy as a system that enables citizens to have a voice. Now people use email to comment. Democracy is expanding but voting does not increase.

Joseph challenges that assumption that the people that email are the ones that already vote. He was out of the country for the last elections, and was very apathetic as a voter. But he is very engaged in federal and provincial discussion-- social networking tools have increased democracy but not in voting. Although he hasn't seen the change that he wants to see, there is a democratic culture is growing. How do we get people to get out and vote? With improved communications people are aware of what's going on, but they're not necessarily feeding their experiences back into the system. What about too much information?

Barbara thinks that people don't vote on information, they vote on personality. Not all voters are thinkers. People vote for reasons that may not seem rational. The municipal elections one local candidate got in through YouTube videos... it's about providing people with a message that they can identify with. They don't care about policy. When all politicans say the same things then people tune out.

Elena says that internet is much more than looks, you're looking at the persons policies, opinion; everything is accessible to citizens. When they get information from TV there only way of discussing is by calling their friend. It's better with the internet. Bob says that an email is not as interactive as a phone call. Phone call gives you an immediate interaction. Maybe Twitter gives you that, but if you're tied in just with technology you use the human contact. Jane likes email because it gets rid of phone tag and you can really reach your constituents.

Peter says that a lot of younger people aren't into voting, and while the older folks are into voting they don't have knowledge about the tools. Cathy wants to challenge that politics is only about image and connecting with people superficially. Barbera says that politics is about perception more than reality. Reality is driving the innovation economy, but politics is about image. "Shit's going to hit the fan when transparency meets bureaucracy."

To Cathy the question is that if they didn't have to go to a voting booth and they could just do that online.  Elena says yes, and the "Vote for Culture" campaign was an amazing tool.  They organized teams in key pockets, and the key ridings tried to swing the vote.  They did videos, emails, etc.  Department of Culture website mixed humour with reality.  Artists speak for the community, and when that is under threat people come out to support. Cathy argues that in the end it was up for the traditional media to promote that as well.

Bob says that in Canada specifically it's all about the centre.  No matter if they're right or left, people go for the centre.  Everybody crowds to the centre and nobody is taking a stand.  "Mushy Middle"..... it's deteriated into no parties putting forth a clear platform.  Can social networking change that?  Cathy is an optimist and believes that social networking can transform politics.  At the last election she was shunned as people only see the Liberals and the Conservatives.  Cathy hopes that social networking can help us to move out of that framework. 

Jane says that there are normally two parties, but that doesn't mean that the issues of the Greens doesn't effect the election.  Their policies get adopted by the mainstream parties.  It's not stealing, it's adopting... looking at this question, it's almost like two questions.  Has it?  Hasn't it?  It obviously has, people are involved and using technology to get their voices out.  Has it increased voter participation?  When you look at the numbers you can se that it hasn't. 

Lisa asks us to question how we are using social media.  Are we just replicating old media strategies?  Do Canadian politicans use it in a good way?  Is it about pushing out ideas, or is it about engaging people? Maybe we're not quite there yet.  Maybe a low voter turn out is not because of an increased social media, but because of failed social media strategies that miror traditional media.

People are drawn to systems that are flexible that they have a say in.  It looks like voter participation is going down, but participation in democracy is going up.

Bob says that he's old enough to remember the times when local elections matter.  No matter how much you network, if desicions are made federally or provincially, local elections lack relivance.  If local officials have controll and responcibilities then they will be relivant.

Catherine wants to focus on how we conceive democracy.  Democracy is the will of the people.  School boundaries are changing, and that is putting our schools in danger and creating schools that are over capacity.  The elected trustee of the riding introduced a friendly amendment which confirmed this increase in the schools students.  Despite a huge democratic movement to challenge this, it was passed.  The land will be developed before the next election.  The vote is not democracy.  Democracy is the will of the people, and it's not happening in the ballot box, and the only way to do it is to get people to show up at the committee meetings and participate.  Local officials don't really have staff.  It's direct contact with constituents. 

Elena comments that in Ontario we have an office called the Ombudsman, who is there to take complaints against politicians. That's what Elena likes about social networking the most, that we can strategize and share tactics on how to challenge government corruption.  John comments that he hs had contact with the Ontario obitsman, and he's a great guy who has a whole team of investigative reserachers. 

How can you measure it?  You can measure it by controll and change.  The obitsman makes some change, but if you look at one obitsman and the amount of change you get through that method. 

Ella says that there are a few gaps.  If you're in a rural area if you have dialup this type of social networking doesn't work.  Sometimes people get tired of email, and it is not accesible to rural people, seniors, and poor people. 

John has one example of success through social network.  For democracy, it's not the elected officials, it's government by the people.  The people we elect are representitives, that means we are the prime minister, the minister of justice, etc.  He has, and he's felt that he's produced a lot of change.  Canadiandream.blogspot.com, blindmansees.com, these are websites that he's used to effect government and policy at all levels.  He does it at home and with friends and he thinks that anyone can do it. 

 Why don't we have online voting?  Of course we can do this, why isn't it happening?  Because it's not in the interest in the two governing parites in Ontario to have high voting turnout.  Elections Canada wants to have registration online, and it will help students. John thinks that we alienate our young people.  We need to change the way that we treat our children.

Jane Mitchell says that even if you don't have a pin number, you can't see how you're voting. But what about voting in the mail?  You can't guarantee the voters identity, but that shouldn't stop us for trying to improve our tools.

Jason thinks that there are two principle challenges to overcome with online voting.  Paper recount would not be possible.  Another challenge is that if we go with electronic voting and a lot of people take it up how many paper voting stations does that leave for the folks who don't have access to electronics?  Do they have to drive an hour to vote, and is that problematic.  With online banking you only have to varify identity, but with voting you need to varify geographic area.  Cathy finds it hard in this day in age that we can't find a way to do online voting.  There's a lot of work that needs to be done and politicans aren't into investing in it. 

 John believes that life and democracy are team sports, and the fact that one small team of people are dedicated to this doesn't work.  It's important to know how government works, where you can input your opinion.

Marc challenges us to lable the paper ballet is opressive to youth.  The failure is the education system to educate youth into seeing that it is relivant to them.  There's a core problem:  Why aren't people engaged.  There is a vested interest in having an elitest system.  Canada has one of the most elitest democracies in the world and it's created that way for a reason.  We need to break down the historical inequities of our political system.  There are solutions to problems, and problems exist for a reason. 

Obama got people excited about social change.  Was it his policies or his communications strategies?  Are his tools a part of his policies?  Politics is a two way street.  Jason thinks that it is important to remember that our preferences in society are that we love the eParticipation, but there's a complementary movement for slow food, and people to people contact, etc.  You can have more meditative moments, as opposed to just getting a tweet from Jack Layton. 

Elena says that initially social media didn't help Obama.  It was the message, and the message was very positive.  Canadian politics are a blame game, it's a negative turn off.  Everyone's blaming, no one is explaining.  We want to hear politicans say what they stand for.  The voter turn out is a reflection of negative campaigning. 

It was important to see what Obama stood for, he was almost like a blank slate and people could project their policy concerns on him.  It might be good for us to take up that positive message.  Does that positive message exist in our current parties?  Cathy says as a Green Party candidate she feels like she represents that same thing.