The public ought to take a close, skeptical look at a proposal being pushed by presidential candidate Ross Perot for what amounts to an "electronic town hall."
Though the proposal sounds like nothing more than an attempt to bring a traditional technique of grass-roots democracy into the age of electronics, it contains some serious flaws that would be inimical to good government.Anyway, here's how the plan would work. Americans would watch a TV show on a particular political issue, then dial an 800 number to let the Perot White House know their preferences.
What would be wrong with that? Plenty!
To prevent a single party from repeatedly dialing, only one call per household could be honored. But if adult members of the same household disagreed, who would cast the tele-ballot? Many unregistered voters could be expected to transmit their views. Is this proper? What about children, who might be tempted to phone in their two cents' worth?
Moreover, too few Americans might take part in a high-tech referendum to accurately depict national opinion. Consider an episode cited by Scripps Howard News Service: In 1976, the New York Regional Plan Association held five electronic town meetings on urban issues. Two million people watched, but only 120,000 - .06 percent - mailed in ballots printed in 28 area newspapers. Toll-free lines would boost participation - but meaningfully?
The presumed virtue of the proposed "electronic town hall" would be to disempower the elites that now wield excessive influence in Washington. But Norman Bradburn of the National Opinion Research Center predicts that most electronic-town-hall responses would come from "the attentive public" - that sliver of Americans who are ideologically zestful and already "well connected to the political dialogue."
Worse still, such plebiscites could allow a demagogic leader to wrap complex issues in emotion-tugging sounds and images, producing the mass response he desired.
Even if demagoguery were somehow avoided, the "electronic town hall" rests on the shaky assumption that the public could get an in-depth understanding of complex issues and programs after being exposed to only an hour or so of TV programs on them.
The "electronic town hall" proposal, if not scrapped altogether, should at least be taken back to the drawing board for a thorough reworking. Despite its surface allure, modern electronic technology is still no substitute for traditional, deliberative lawmaking.