Key Claims about Impact of theInternet on Political Parties Party Competition (possible lower cost to start a new party) Power Diffusion (increased grassroots control over candidates) Institutional Adaptation (parties adapt to the Internet by using it to buttress their advantages, party competition will not increase)
The Howard Dean Campaign 2003-2004 Campaign Joe Trippi in charge of Internet strategy Early alliance with meetup.com Early support from the Daily Kos Dean won in New Hampshire but ultimately lost to Kerry
The 2008 Obama Campaign Extensive use of the Internet to solicit small campaign contributions and to build a network of campaign workers/volunteers Extensive use of YouTube to spread David Plouffe awareness of the campaign by repurposing campaign ads More limited use of interactivity to video gather ideas from supporters and to vet ideas from campaign headquarters
The 2008 Presidential Election What the Pew Internet and American Life Project has to say about it (report). More got politic al info from the Internet, espec. online political videos Increased use of social networking sites (MySpace and Facebook) Increase in online contributors from 2 percent in 2004 to 6 percent in 2008 Some self-reports of voter empowerment but also of worries about extremism and misinformation
Discussion Points (Chadwick, ch. 7) Has the early potential of the Internet been realized in the area of election campaigning? Why has the United States witnessed greater levels of online campaigning than the United Kingdom? Assess the long-term significance of the Dean campaign of 2003-2004. Is online interaction too risky for politicians? Have parties successfully adapted to the Internet? Evaluate the claim that the Internet will combat voter apathy.
Defining e-Government “…e-government initiatives usually involve several types of electronic and information systems, including database, networking, discussion support, multimedia, automation, tracking and tracing, and personal identification technologies.” Can be used at all levels of government from local to national. Goals for use are diverse. May be useful to distinguish among G2G, G2B, and G2C communications.
Historical Developments in US U.S. National Performance Review (1993 supervised by VP Al Gore) Creation of government portal, Firstgov (now called USA.gov) Clinton memorandum to accelerate e-government Government Paperwork Elimination Act of 1998 E-Government Act of 2002 More history of initiatives can be found on the OMB Office of E-Government and Information Technology web site
Work of Darrell West IU Political Science PhD Until recently he taught at Brown University Currently head of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution Check out his web site, Inside Politics, for data on e- government at the state and federal government levels and also for international comparisons
Work of Stuart Shulman Univ. of Oregon PhD Taught at Univ. of Pittsburgh, 1999-2008 Currently at U. Mass, Amherst Main research: federal agency rule-making Founder of the Journal of Information Technology and Politics
Discussion Points (Chadwick, ch. 8) What are the policy origins of e-government? Is e-government about better government, better democracy, or both? How is e-government different from previous government computerization initiatives? Doe e-government change power relations with public bureaucracies? Does e-government redistribute power within the political system?