It’s 2008. We call this the digital era. Yet, in the United States we seem to lack political leaders with a vision for technology, much less an interest in the ways technology can make all levels of government services more efficient, effective, and accessible to regular voters.

Yes, indeed, the rumblings are starting to get a little louder – snuggled, as they currently are, within our niche community of tech-savvy politicos and politics-friendly techies. Is a technology transformation upon us?

For some, the transformation begins when elected officials use technology to listen. There’s a word – listening. In the middle of an election season that has seen a glut of staged conversations, online and offline. Andrew Feinberg rants about some of these so-called listening exercises today at Capitol Valley. There’s a difference between talker at voters and listening to them.

Talkers get headlines. Listeners get things done.

Like fixing potholes and handling case work, increasing the efficiency and efficacy of government programs. A year ago, IPDI published Constituent Relationship Management: The New Little Black Book of Politics, which looks how political campaigns and elected office can use online and offline feedback loops to run case management and constituent communications. Many elected officials and political candidates already use database platforms to help this process.

The next step? Government institutions that employ tech-enabled feedback loops to deliver better goods and services.

In their Politico column, Andrew Rasiej and Micah Sifry write about some of the ways in which foreign citizens and governments are using technology to listen and act, including e-petitions in the United Kingdom and the government of New Zealand’s wiki for a new Policing Act. As Rasiej and Sifry put it, you can use the Internet to file your taxes, but you can’t use it to make suggestions on how your tax dollars ought to be spent:

Imagine then, that the next time you file your taxes online, your government asks for your feedback on how those tax dollars are being spent. Or it takes your suggestions on how to make a law more understandable. Or it helps you find groups near you that are doing things that benefit your community. It may sound mundane, but today in America, it would be the equivalent of a revolution. How much longer do we have to wait to bridge yet another digital divide?

What about tech policy?

At the Information Technology & Innovation Foundation, Robert D. Atkinson writes,

we need a debate in America that focuses on the most important issues like to get fast broadband networks to all Americans; how to use IT to transform our health care system, transportation system, education system, and government; and how to encourage all organizations to become digital, thereby driving productivity and income growth and a better quality of life.

Atkinson thinks that better private-public partnerships can help create an environment of “digital transformation.”

Over at Open Left, Matt Stoller blogs about the successful efforts of blogger and member of the California Democratic Party platform committee, Dante Atkins, to get Net Neutrality in the party platform:

California Democrats, in order to promote vigorous free speech, a vibrant business community, and unfettered access to all information on the Internet, support policies to preserve an open, neutral and interconnected Internet. California Democrats strongly agree with recent rulings by the Federal Election Commission that political communications, including blogging, which take place independent of a political party, committee or candidate, receive a media exemption from campaign finance regulations. California Democrats further reaffirm their support of the right to free speech as expressed in the First Amendment, including the right to critique any elected official or comment on any and all public policy, whether during war or peace, without fear of reprisal.

 Perhaps it is time that we — voters that we are — begin to expect more from our elected officials and encourage digital leadership on our blogs as well as in our voting booths.

I hate to be the cynic in the room, but my overall analysis of the YouTube debate discussion can be summed as follows: way to idealistic. I think everyone would like a more democratic, inclusive process, but deep down we all know it is not going to happen.

To me, it is rather surprising that campaigns have allowed as much format experimentation as they have. Getting them to allow debates with more “real people” input is not likely. Campaigns are all about control and debates obviously represent a loss of that control. I think they were OK with the CNN/Youtube style because most of them knew that CNN was not going to surprise them. It’s not in CNN’s interest. CNN’s goal – regardless of the moderator (reporter, pundit, politician, partisan) – is to not upset anyone so they still have access to the right people at the end of the day.

Campaigns do not want real people (non journalists/reporters/politicos) involved in the debates, IMO. It’s just too risky because the average Joe has nothing to lose by hammering the candidate with a real question and a real follow up. I didn’t see the Fox debate with the question from the diner, but I’m shocked they did that. I’m sure there was some vetting process for the guy so it wasn’t totally spontaneous.

Seeing true personality at the debates would be a good thing, but its difficult. The scientific principle of “you can’t observe something without changing it,” or however that goes, applies. Plus, candidates have to be “presidential,” whatever that means, in order to have a shot at “winning” a debate in pundits’ eyes. Joe Biden can show personality and use one-liners because he knows he won’t win in the end. Maybe that’s why so many people enjoy his attitude during the debates - he seems real.

As for question solicitation, there needs to be guidance. Instead of ask anything, it should be ask anything about issue x. But issue x does not have to be tightly limited, it can be something broad like, education reform. People can still ask questions they want, but giving them a focal point will generate more relevant and probably more probing questions. Also a combination of user questions plus moderator questions seems like a decent idea. Show a user submitted video saying “Candidates, why are school vouchers bad?” and then have the moderator stick with that subject (education) for another few questions (moderator generated) so more interesting debate could occur.

I also like the transparency ideals. I think they should be applied all the way around, including those in the spin rooms or those summarizing the debates on TV.

I don’t know how to make the debates better at the end of the day. I think cutting off microphones and stickler moderators who will ask tough follow-ups are essential. I think the moderator has to be someone who has nothing to gain or lose, and that person is hard to find. The microphone thing would also be kind of funny, but it forces candidates to be concise and not dance all around an issue, especially if they know that the moderator is going to come back and say “You didn’t answer the question, you get another 15 seconds to give me a real answer.” Politicians are great at dodging the questions, and even in that format, I’m sure they would get better as time went on.

After it’s all said and done, primary debates are not really debates. Most candidates are close enough policy-wise that there is little to debate. Once the general election rolls around and the two major parties face-off against each other it might look different to me, but right now its definitely just about the cheap shots.

Last week, I moaned about why I thought the CNN/YouTube Republican Presidential Debate was a little bit off. I wanted to see more substance and less circus.

This week, I invited a group of new and traditional media practitioners and analysts over to IPDI for lunch and conversation. We wanted to begin a conversation about what future technology-powered debates should look like.

You can read our memo at: http://www.ipdi.org/uploadedfiles/Future%20tech%20debates.pdf

Not a free for all

Part of our conversation centered on the role that gatekeepers play in the debate process. Most of the room coalesced around the idea that holding free-for-all style voting online to set the debate agenda and determine which questions will be asked. The room felt that some kind of gatekeeper or mediator was needed to add order and structure to the debate and keep the process fair. In other words, we thought that some control was good. We tried to think of recommendations that balanced the need for order and some control with our desire to make the debate agenda-setting process more transparent and interactive.

New model wanted

At the same time, we couldn’t ignore the fact that the great American presidential debate model is beginning to feel a little outdated, an aging device from a broadcast era. We felt that in order to engage the viewers and voters of the future, the debate model itself most adapt to changing expectations and media consumption habits.

Here are our recommendations:

1. Balance the role of the debate mediator, whether that mediator is a broadcast media company, political party, or technology company, in setting the debate agenda and selecting questions with a representative sample of the American public. This can occur in many ways. For example, one possibility is developing a focus group comprised of partisan and centrist members of the American public to help select questions and engage in providing commentary and follow-up question during the debate – online and on television.
2. Make the traditional post-debate coverage more interactive. Instead of following up with the candidates and pundits, incorporate questions, comments, and push back from the audience. Ask the candidate’s follow-up questions from an online forum or offline focus group. Incorporate comments from live bloggers or people texting into the debate.
3. Publish the debate mediator’s criteria for selecting questions and setting the debate on the Internet and allow moderated feedback from the public.
4. Use the Internet to generate substantial discussions about policy before, during, and after the debate.
   1. Before – Consider allowing each candidate’s campaign to use a portion of your website to post policy position papers or other forms of online media, and make these positions and opinions easily accessible, searchable, and comparable by the public.
   2. During – Consider incorporating different channels of live communication and publishing into your webcast or broadcast. This might include, for example, publishing an online “fact checking squad” that researches statements the candidate’s make and publishes the results online in real time. Allow campaign staffers to post evidence that supports their candidates’ statements in real time. Another idea might be to publish ongoing comments from a panel of issues experts.
   3. After – Incorporate the comments of live bloggers and online audience members into post debate commentary and interviews with the candidates. Ask on- and offline focus group members to discuss what they felt were key moments from the debate.
5. Create and post community guidelines on all debate discussion fora to generate a spirit of respect and quickly remove abusive or spam posts.
6. Use technology that is ubiquitous and uncomplicated, so that even those who are familiar with wikis or posting video will feel comfortable participating.
7. Establish anti-sabotage measures on all online fora and voting mechanisms to prevent people from gaming the system.
8. Use split screens on television broadcast so that users without high speed internet access can follow the dialogue and participate in the discussion by as many ways as possible – text message, email, phone calls, instant message etc.
9. If you want to generate substance-driven user-generated content, such as web videos, questions, or commentary, then make your “ask” specific and policy-focused. For example, ask people to contribute questions that address a specific policy issue or set of policy issues.

Epilogue

We post these recommendations as a strawman. We certainly don’t have all the answers, and we hope that further reflection and discussion will enhance the dialogue and perhaps lead us to a more nuanced understanding of how technology should and will shape the future of presidential debates in the future.

Please add to the discussion. Email your ideas to ipdi@ipdi.org.

Here’s an interesting move. Save the Debate just posted the following release regarding the CNN YouTube Republican Presidential Debate this week on Facebook:

  FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Thursday, November 29, 2007

Save the Debate Coalition Statement on CNN’s Flawed Editorial Process

“The Save the Debate coalition would like to thank the Republican candidates for participating in the YouTube debate, which reached an estimated 4.5 million Americans, a record for this primary cycle. We are hopeful that the candidates will consider future opportunities to use technology to reach new participants in the political process.

“Further, we applaud the YouTube community for the quality of the questions submitted that sparked informative and substantive exchanges among the Republican candidates. With nearly 5,000 YouTube user-submitted questions — 2,000 more than for the Democratic debate — Americans are increasingly taking advantage of the opportunity to participate in the democratic process.

“Unfortunately, CNN’s flawed editorial process in choosing the questions asked of the candidates marred an otherwise lively debate and betrayed the trust of the Republican candidates and the YouTube user community. In the most glaring example, a questioner affiliated with the Hillary Clinton campaign was given a soapbox to berate the Republican candidates at the debate — when even a cursory web search of the individual would have revealed his clear conflict of interest.

“A YouTube debate should strive to minimize the media filter rather than highlight it. Instead the selection of questions for the Republican CNN/YouTube debate highlighted CNN’s selection bias.

“We strongly encourage YouTube and other new media platforms to refrain from working with CNN on future debates.”

The Save The Debate Coalition was founded earlier this year to help encourage Republican candidates to participate in the YouTube CNN Debate. Its co-founders include Patrick Ruffini of PatrickRuffini.com and Townhall.com, David All of TechRepublican.com, Soren Dayton of Redstate.com and EyeOn08.com, and Robert Bluey of RobertBluey.com and Redstate.com. For more information, visit www.savethedebate.com.

It sounded like a pretty good idea last summer. I was enamored with the YouTube Presidential Debates, despite the fact that many of the Democratic candidates during that first debate attempted to side-step the questions. Last night, however, the debates devolved into some strange circus of a reality show.

The questions edited for viewing were silly, stereotypical (how many clips of southern accented, white, rifle-toting men did we really need to see during a Republican debate?), and as Micah Sifry points out on TechPresident this morning, demeaning. The questions Internet users appear to be as oblivious and vapid as sing-songy little forest elves.

The problem isn’t the American people. Rather, it’s the gatekeepers.

Sifry suggests that the YouTube debate was missing input from one or two very important constituencies: the minds working in the trenches at YouTube, living and breathing the medium, and the American people.

Micah quotes Jason Rosenbaum of TheSeminal.com, who points out “Instead of a stupid song about the candidates (that had no question, I might add), an animated cartoon of Dick Cheney, and a question about the confederate flag, we could have had a question about the drug war. Or about energy policy. Or more than one question about Iraq (and one about Iran). Or one about health care.

How do we reinvent the model?

1. Combine the upbeat, quick pace of questions during the last twenty minutes with some of the heavier, more policy-based questions scattered meagerly throughout the rest of the debate.
2. Allow the public to vote on the questions, perhaps by making them register first.
3. Nix the song and dance numbers.
4. Find a moderator(s) who isn’t afraid to interrupt the candidates.
5. Cut the attack ads some of the campaigns tried to pass off as 30-second YouTube style videos.

But can we fault CNN for wanting to craft the debates into a variety-show inspired sing along. After all, we’re talking about a medium that is relatively new and whose attributes often conflict with “what works” on broadcast television. In this case, designing a debate that grabs broadcast headlines is perhaps incompatible with the type of discussions that many consumers of and participators in online politics have grown to expect.

Yahoo! News reports that Barak Obama won its Democratic Candidate Mashup – a collection of questions and answers with the candidates that the online audience can view and vote on. How did the candidates match up?

Barako Obama – 35%

Hillary Clinton – 31%

John Edwards – 12%

Dennis Kucinich – 8%

Joe Biden – 5%

Bill Richardson – 5%

Mike Gravel – 3%

Chris Dodd – 1%

Yesterday, MTV and MySpace announced a plan to hold a series of live, interactive townhall-style discussions with the 2008 Presidential candidates. Viewers can submit questions by multiple platforms – instant messaging, text messaging, email, and candidates answer live, while viewers vote on their answers through online polls.

Interesting. Refreshing even.

Less refreshing, however, is the amount of mostly condescending coverage over the course of the past day contending that an audience of young voters will have nothing better to ask the candidates than “boxers of briefs.”

We went to Google News and searched for the term “boxers or briefs.” The search engine gave us 64 stories from publications like the New York Times, Wired, Boston Globe, San Francisco Chronicle, Washington, Forbes, Politico, Variety, BusinessWeek and more.

Many of those publications predict that the question “boxers or briefs” is about as deep as they expect the young American voters who will engage in these forums to be.

At what point does a question from the 1990s become irrelevant and insulting?

Perhaps we crossed that point yesterday.

We predict that the young voters who engage in MTV and MySpace’s forums will not be as vapid as the media suggests. Young Voter Strategies (a program hosted, like IPDI, by GW’s Graduate School of Political Management), believes that young voters are engaged, informed, and enormous (over 41 million strong) and will be a tremendous force in elections.

By allowing viewers to use many platforms to post their questions – and by tapping into the millions of young voters engaged in politics – these forums have the ability to be more revealing than anything we’ve seen all summer.

The New York Times doesn’t think that the Democratic YouTube Debate was particularly revolutionary.

That’s why they asked a panel of new media experts to opine on the topic “What would a real new-media debate look like?”

Here are (some of) their answers:

David All – Encourage the American “community” to participate by having the audience share part of the stage with the moderator.

Micah Sifry and Andrew Rasiej – The public votes on the YouTube questions, and the candidates reply through web video.

Zephyr Teachout – Hold a day-long, tournament-style debate series in which the candidates are pitted one against the other.

Matt Bai – Equip the candidates with an instant messaging platform that allows them to respond to each other’s comments on a big screen  above the stage.

Kevin Kelly – Always on debates in which the candidates don microcameras to provoke them to answer difficult questions as they arise during their daily activities.

Tom Brokaw – Make the candidates answer the questions through text messaging and equip them with martinis.

Reports this morning suggest the Republican YouTube debate is falling apart. The Giuliani campaign says Rudy won’t come. They’re blaming CNN, claiming that the cable network failed to consult with them before picking a date.

Mitt Romney, meanwhile, isn’t a fan of the format:

“I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman,” he said in an interview yesterday.

What on earth are these guys scared of? Hard questions? Young people? Snowmen? The decision really puts Romney and Giuliani in a terrible light. From Patrick Ruffini:

This is a big mistake. The Democrats are afraid to answer questions from Big Bad Fox News Anchors, and the Republicans are afraid to answer questions from regular people. Which is worse?

It’s stuff like this that will set the GOP back an election cycle or more on the Internet. No matter the snazzy Web features and YouTube videos they may put up, if they’re fundamentally uncomfortable with the idea of interacting with real people online, what’s the point?

Having spent the better part of a decade working at the intersection of politics and the Web, I can’t help but feel of a deep, deep sense of dismay that we’re missing something so basic. This is EXACTLY why I am afraid that we will be outraised by $100 million or more in 2008.

Yes, some of the questions on Monday were trivial. Yes, they were partisan. (I expect many of the 9/17 questioners to be partisan Republicans.) Yes, they were messy. But so is democracy. And the fact that some place so much faith in the broken mainstream media over a benign format like this one says a lot about the difficult straits the Republicans are in right now.

Check out further disappointment from Republican consultant David All. He and Ruffini have already started a petition at SaveTheDebate.

Obviously, you’ve got to agree with All and Ruffini. Romney and Giuliani look painfully out of touch. Think of it this way: in the Dem CNN/YouTube debate, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton got asked about their race and gender, respectively, in a way that would never happen between a candidate and a Beltway journalist. Take the marine stationed in Japan who wonders how a President Hillary could talk with Arab leaders. You could tell he almost felt bad asking the question- he defensively says he thinks it’s legitimate. That’s something that real people wonder, but Clinton gave a flawless answer. She may have even changed some minds. Same for Obama, who had the funniest line of the night with his ‘cab in Manhattan’ quip.

Romney,  Giuliani, and the rest of the Republican candidates should jump at the chance to engage in a YouTube style debate and address real questions from voters, instead of retreating from it.

As we enter the final moments of the CNN/YouTube Democratic Debates, I can’t help wondering: who are the candidates having a direct dialogue with? Anderson Cooper? Each other? George Bush?

Shucks! I thought they were supposed to be talking to Americans like me.

After all, the debate incorporated dozens of questions, which, by and large, were actually pretty darn tough. I hate to brag, but I have to pat ourselves on the back for throwing some hard balls. And I have to give us, the American people, some credit for appearing on TV, unpolished (though slightly edited by CNN, it appears, for time), without makeup or lighting — just real people talking about things we care about.

So who were the candidates conversing with? Not me. And, most of the time, not the people asking the questions.

I don’t think they ignored us on purpose. I think they were swept up by the moment, the crowd in the audience, each other, the host. Instead of talking to America, they bickered with the White House, each other, and they argued with Anderson Cooper about how many seconds they had left.

We saw an old-school style debate for a YouTube audience.

That’s why I’ve compiled a short list of things I’d like to see next time:

• First and foremost, answer our questions. Running down bunny trails and changing the subject makes us feel like you’re a) uncertain and b) dismissing our ideas and thoughts. The reason why almost 3,000 posted questions on YouTube is because we want you to answer them.
• American voters don’t want you to use the CNN/YouTube debate to attack each other. We want to see what you have to say about yourself, not what you have to say about your opponent.
• If someone asks you a question on YouTube, then answer that person. Don’t answer Anderson Cooper. He didn’t ask you the question. Look in the camera and answer the person.
• We didn’t come for a lecture or a sermon. Talk to us, not down to us. And certainly don’t shout at us.
• Unless you know you have great comic timing, rethink telling jokes. They come across somewhat uncomfortable and, well, lame (even when we like you). We’re looking for a leader, not a jokester.
• We understand that two hour-debates are tricky. But please don’t take notes while we’re talking to you. Appear to listen. You most likely wouldn’t take notes while you were in the middle of a conversation would you?