Social Justice - Tracy Westen

"Democracy is an interactive form of government," says Westen. "It's composed of interactions between citizens, candidates, and elected representatives, and they're all involved in communications. There's very little manufacturing involved in government -- none in campaigns. It's all speech; it's all communication. So democracy is essentially dependent on the current system of communication. And every new communications system has had a major impact on the political system."

Which is why Westen's newest, boldest nonprofit venture, the Democracy Network, a new communications channel, has the potential not only to join the political fray but also to transform it. This time, Westen is not satisfied with preaching evolution. This time, he wants revolution. "We are trying to shape the architecture of democracy," he says. "The Internet represents an interactive form of communication. It's unlike radio, television, and print, which are essentially one-way media. Only the Internet is two-way: You listen to what others are saying, and then you talk back. You can use the Internet to set up two-way communications links. So, if the government is interactive, and the Internet is interactive, and you put them together, it makes sense that that combination will have a major impact on the political system."

Democracy at Work

The way it works is simple: In the 2000 elections, the Democracy Network (www.democracynetwork.org; www.dnet.org) will feature information on the main issues of every federal race, as well as on statewide races in 11 states for such elected positions as governor and attorney general, and on a large number of state legislative races. All in all, the network will involve between 3,000 and 6,000 candidates. All candidates will be invited to post their positions on the DNet Web site. Candidates will also be able to take part in online debates and discussions by rebutting statements posted by their opponents or by responding to questions posed by DNet users.

"People just don't have time to go to hundreds of Web sites for information on candidates," Westen says. "There has to be a central meeting place where you can easily pick the candidate and the issue that you want -- and that's the Democracy Network. DNet is like a shopping mall for political candidates. And it's one-stop shopping because you have access to every candidate. It's kind of a return to the old country fair, where the candidates would come to debate."

Broadening and deepening the debate between political candidates is a central purpose behind the Democracy Network, which was founded in 1996 as a joint venture between Westen's Center for Governmental Studies and the League of Women Voters. In a section of the DNet Web site labeled "the issue grid," candidates in any given race can upload their positions on any issues that they choose. Their opponents then automatically receive an email informing them of those statements. The opponents can then either post a rebuttal or opt to have a "no comment" icon appear under that topic on the issue grid. Candidates respond more often than not -- and join the debate.

Why is this important? Because, as Westen is quick to point out, in typical television election coverage, the so-called issue spread only covers three or four hot-button topics. In California, for example, the same big four -- crime, taxes, immigration, and welfare -- tend to predominate. Which means that if you're interested in hearing about a noncore issue such as education, the environment, or health care, you're out of luck. And even on these core issues, candidates rarely, if ever, actually engage in face-to-face debates. Instead, most political discourse takes place in expensive, slickly produced 30-second television spots, in which candidates seek to transform complex problems into simple, bumper-sticker slogans. Candidates who can't raise the money to buy television time are excluded from what passes for political dialogue.

Last year's gubernatorial primary in California offered a classic case in point. The campaign, the most expensive in California history, featured only one televised debate between the candidates. And when it was first scheduled, not one of California's television stations -- including the Public Broadcasting affiliates -- agreed to carry the debate live. Finally, the night before the debate, Los Angeles's Channel 5 decided to air the debate -- the next morning at 11 AM, when most people would be at work. Nor was the debate open to all candidates: Of the 17 candidates running for governor, only the four frontrunners were invited to participate. And of the vast variety of problems and concerns facing California, only nine issues were addressed during the debate.