In the feedback from my Youtube slideshow Debugging Democracy some worried that the Democracy Network proposed in the slideshow might somehow marginalize or perhaps destabilize our government. So in this post, I’ll examine the impact of a Democracy Network or Collaborative Framework on our government, using content adopted from chapter 14 of my book America 2076 .

A major theme of the book (and this blog) is that citizens need additional assistance in order to better participate in the activities of modern American politics. So a considerable amount of space is dedicated to the benefits of a collaborative “Democracy Network” for citizens.

But the “Democracy Network” and the collaborative planning it could foster - would also provide tremendous empowerment to the legitimate endeavors of those in government.

Those who govern desperately need insight and wisdom to determine the best way to proceed and more fundamentally, how best to orchestrate the attention and resources of the nation in order to protect and provide for our future security. It would seem reasonable that a government faced with this challenge would seek a
mechanism that taps the collective intelligence and insight of its population.

A Democracy Network concept and its attendant mechanisms provide the best solution so far for doing this.

The following paragraphs examine some of the specific that a “Democracy Network” would provide to the legitimate activities of the government.

Benefit #1: More coherent, usable feedback for elected officials

The input that elected representatives would receive from a collaborative framework that aggregates and de-duplicates citizen input would far exceed the quality of the input they receive from current methods. It would be more direct, and less open to
interpretation. It would be the difference between a last will and testament versus a series of photographs. It would be what the people actually said they wanted. State
representatives could review the National Agenda document as well, since the National Agenda would also include items that should be taken up by the states.
Instead of peering through the dark glass of market research, and extrapolating the impact of political ads, elected representatives could see for themselves the guidance the citizens have communicated to their government. The collaborative tools of the Democracy Network and the documents it prepares would also provide an attractive alternative to the floods of form letters and emails from overzealous grassroots organizations.

The idea of direct input from citizens has already been implemented in a number of federal web sites which seek input on various government decision-making and
activities.(1) It has not yet been put together on a national scale and scope. If it were, it would provide a single coherent place (or online document) where people can view all of the items their government is working on, and provide input to any of them.

Benefit #2: The collective intelligence of the nation

Governing is a complicated endeavor – one that requires the maximum available intelligence.(2) For this reason, wise governments find ways to solicit the collective intelligence of their fellow citizens. By collective intelligence, I mean a knowledge that is based on the aggregation of as many viewpoints as possible, so as to provide a 360 degree view of the factors that relate to an issue, or to the ramifications of a given decision. Those who govern, and those who participate in governing need to possess the best available knowledge and need to be as intelligent as possible in order for things to go well.

Because the full knowledge required to govern well does not reside in a single individual, or even a single group, a means of collecting the intelligence held by all
individuals is required. Democratic governments solicit the intelligence of the people through a number of methods, the most well known of which is voting. In this
sense, voting is more than just an opportunity to express one’s opinion. It is an appeal to the collective intelligence of the national population, for help in determining who should manage a certain aspect of the local or federal government.

But voting alone is not sufficient to extract the full collective intelligence needed to run the government. Many modern governments also solicit the collective intelligence of the people by other methods such as polling, and the encouragement of direct correspondence with representatives.

Representative government (the process of soliciting the collective will of the people), is not correct simply because it is fair. It is also correct because it is currently the best known way to aggregate citizen intelligence for the purpose of making very complicated and risky decisions that directly impact the individuals within the
citizen population.

Those who govern seem to intuitively hold a near universal desire to foster communication between citizen and government through polling, web sites and email
addresses for senators, and so forth. With few exceptions most appear to subscribe to the notion that citizens must be able to communicate with their government - in a
coherent way - their top concerns and the multiple facets of these concerns.

But what is lacking is a single coherent repository of the national collective thinking about the issues the country faces. There is no top-of-mind place to go, in order to register one’s concerns. One may write each of their state and federal representatives, but this is a one way conversation (usually) outlining the thoughts of a single person. These thoughts have more than likely not been blended with the thoughts and concerns of others. Or one may join forces with one of the myriad political action groups, each of which will usually have their own version of an agenda for only a few of the many issues the nation faces. And too often, these political groups focus on utilizing finely tuned awareness campaigns to flood the offices of elected representatives that may amount to – or come dangerously close to - false impressions of the will of the people. None of these options allow for an effective single repository of the nation’s thinking and collaborative planning.

Benefit #3: Efficiency

The Democracy Network and its collaborative tools could help optimize the efforts of the Congressional staff, by improving efficiency and transparency, while allowing more direct citizen participation.

It would be reasonable to inquire whether or not a full accounting of the cost resources and effort expended by the total Congressional staff, might not provide the justification for the cost of building the Democracy Network. The Congressional Budget Office isn’t exactly forthcoming on its current payroll figures for Congressional Staff. Their web site (http://www.cbo.gov), while otherwise generous in detail, provides no definitive information on current staffing costs.

In December of 2004 Thomas Rains published an article “High Salaries for Congressional Staff” which detailed fiscal year 2004 salary figures for Senate and House staffs for New Hampshire and Maine. The article referred to research conducted by Foster’s Daily Democrat, and alleged among other things that the
Senators from the two states of New Hampshire and Maine spent around two million dollars each on their staffs.(3)

At times Congress itself has admitted awareness of issues connected to the size, expense and relative effectiveness of its staff. In 1993 the House of Representatives published a Summary of Hearings on Congressional Staff and Management. In these hearings, various members of Congressional testified that the Congressional Staff needed to be reduced, that its current size was unnecessary, and that the overstaffing actually hindered the legislative process.(4) One representative noted in the hearings that the Congressional Staff had tripled since 1960.(5)

At the time of writing, some indication of the staffing costs of Congress is available in the text of the Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 2006 (H.R. 2985) which allocates funds for Senate and House expenses for 2006.(6) Listed below are the three budget items in this bill which appear to relate to the staffing and salary costs of Congress:

• $147,120,000 for Senate “Salaries, Officers an Employees”
• $350,000,000 for “Senators’ Official Personnel and Office Expense Account”
• $1,092,407,000 for “salaries and expenses of the House of Representatives”

The three figures together approach 1.6 billion dollars. According to the text of the bill, this figure does not constitute the entire operating budget of the House and Senate. The bill lists quite a few other expense items. One cannot help thinking that 1.6 billion dollars ought to buy a better democratic experience for citizens. And that perhaps some portion of that 1.6 billion dollars might be well spent on something along the lines of the Democracy Network.

Better tools facilitate better government

Elected officials in general do not wish to ignore the will of the people. In fact they often go to great lengths to find out what their constituents want. Most non-elected
officials, those public servants sometimes derisively labeled “bureaucrats”, also usually have a sincere desire to serve their nation and its people. They are often working at lower wages than they might earn in the private sector. They are where they are because they believe they can make a difference.

So this book should not be construed as an attempt to discredit elected officials, or to rein in an out-of-control government. The flaws and problems in our national discourse today are not the result of malicious intentions or even neglect. They are primarily the result of having to rely on a very limited set of tools to coordinate a massive communication and collaboration process between a government and its 296 million citizens.(7)

As better tools become available, and as we learn how to use them, many of these problems will probably be alleviated. This book is an attempt to raise awareness of
better tools which are becoming available and of the ways in which we might be able to use them.

These better tools benefit not only the people but also the government. If these tools are implemented in some form similar to the Collaborative Framework, they change the game so it is no longer a matter of competing to see who can outwit or out manipulate who. It is now a game where we work together to see if we can beat time. Can we achieve what we need to achieve as a nation this year?
Can we do what we need to do now, in order to be prepared for what is coming next year, and the year after?
It is a full scale transformation from mindless competition between partisan clubs to the competition of ideas that a truly inclusive, truly collaborative planning process can provide. It is also a change in focus: from obsessing over temporary political triumphs to focusing with a sense of urgency on crafting the best possible plans for our nation’s future.

If we find a way to do this – to allow more meaningful participation of the people in a national collaborative planning process - the people are not the only benefactors.
The mission of our government benefits as well.

Notes

1. The Environmental Protection Agency’s EDOCKET provides
online access to proposed regulations that are currently open to
public review and comment. The EDOCKET web site allows
citizens to search for, select and read proposed regulations, then
provide comments via online forms. Since its founding, other
government agencies have begun participating in EDOCKET,
making their regulations available for citizen review and input.
EDOCKET can be accessed at http://www.epa.gov/edocket.
In addition, The U.S. Government provides a web site similar to
EDOCKET’s function but wider in scope at
http://www.regulations.gov. This portal site allows citizens to
search an extremely wide range of regulatory topics - from
transportation to wildlife management – for proposed
regulations they want to review. The site provides access to the
full text of the regulation document, along with instructions and
addresses for submitting comments. Depending on the agency
overseeing the regulation, comments are submitted via postal
mail, email, or in some cases via online forms.

2. The term “intelligence” has been given a negative
connotation implying a surreptitious or illegal approach to
gathering confidential information. I use the term “intelligence”
here to denote simply the knowledge and understanding needed
in order to do something well.

3. See “High Salaries For Congressional Staff” by Thomas
Rains, Newswire, December 17, 2004 (Boston University,
Washington Journalism Center). Available online at
http://www.bu.edu/washjocenter/newswire_pg/fall2004/newha
mpshire/salaries1217.htm

4. For full text of these hearings, see “Summary of Hearings on
Congressional Staff and Management” (1993) available online at the United States House of Representatives web site:
http://www.house.gov/rules/jcoc2t.htm

For a complete history of the growth of the Congressional
staffing, see “Congressional Staff and Management” available
online at the United States House of Representatives web site:
http://www.house.gov/rules/jcoc2r.htm

Another report claims that “Congress remains the most heavily
staffed legislature in the world.” See “Slashing Congressional
Spending, Part I: Congressional Pay, Pensions, Perks, and Staff”
by Dan Greenberg, May 16, 1995. Available online at
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Budget/BG1034.cfm

5. Excerpt from House of Representatives “Summary of
Hearings on Congressional Staff and Management” (1993):
“…Representative Scott Klug testified on February 4, ‘Between
1960 and 1993, the number of lawmakers here in Congress has
remained exactly the same, but the congressional staff has
grown three times in size;’2 he continued by recommending that
Congress downsize in a manner comparable to U.S. industrial
giants. Others indicated that large staffs have resulted in the
Congress becoming too staff-reliant.”

6. The full text of H.R. 2985 can be accessed online via the
THOMAS web site (http://www.congress.gov or
http://thomas.loc.gov). THOMAS is operated by the Library of
Congress and provides online access to the Congressional
Record and the full text of bills from 1973 to the present.

7. See U.S. Census Bureau’s Population clock at
http://www.census.gov/population/www/popclockus.html for
latest figures. This web site provides projected population
figures based on the Census 2000 data.