Sign of the Times in Honolulu

While not necessarily a demonstration of campaign possibilities, the recent Internet vote in Honolulu does reflect a change in voter attitudes to technology and government. Considered a minor story by most news outlets, Honolulu's neighborhood council election was determined by a combination of Internet vote and phoning in. It was considered a minor story because there were only 115,000 voters. But, according to Yahoo! News, this marks the first all digital election in the United States.

So, what does this mean for your campaign? After all a vote submitted online counts just as much as one marked on a piece of paper. Ignoring the lessons from this election would be a big mistake. The lessons I am talking about have more to do with voter attitudes and less to do with the actual outcome.

First, in a democracy, elections are sacred. All people receive one vote. No outside circumstance is allowed to disfranchise a citizen. This means you cannot create obstacles to voting based on such things as race, gender, and religion. But it also means you cannot block an individual's voting rights based on ability, i.e. the method of voting should not excluded any group. Poll taxes and literacy tests were attempts at disfranchising targeted groups which often did not meet required
thresholds of a certain ability. Ten years ago, one could make the argument that an all digital vote was also excluding those that either did not have access to a computer or were not comfortable using one. Honolulu's election has marked a turning point. Most people own a computer and they are also comfortable using it. Even if you do not own a computer, going to the local library to vote on a computer is just as difficult as going to the local library to vote on a piece of paper. To be honest, I believe that using the Internet as the method to vote is the ultimate expression of usability. Computer knowledge is no longer a barrier in our society, but on the list of standard competencies and expectations. In other words, your Internet resources will have the same potential reach as the election itself.

A second point, perhaps not as significant as the first but nevertheless important, is that of security. We are a society that values privacy. Along with our personal data, we have the right to a secret ballot. Individuals' voting records cannot and will no be kept in elections. On a related note, during an election, the voter must confirm their identity. Nonexistent or deceased people cannot vote. This has been a concern about the Internet for some time: how to do we confirm you are who you say you are and then how do we protect your data? Honolulu has shown us that society is beginning to get over that fear and that we now the technology to do both. The firm that put together the system, Everyone Counts, has pointed out that their system is more secure than Internet banking. This is a comfort everyone can relate to.

The final point is efficiency. This is a story that any organization can appreciate. By voting online, the city saved about $100,000. Looking at preliminary estimates, this would mean the city saved about 56% on total election costs. Just because you are taking a totally new and different approach to campaigning by moving to the Internet does not mean it will be expensive, it may even be more cost effective. I cannot say it will always be cheaper but it is worth looking into.

The next post will be June 9th.

References:

Yahoo! News Article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090523/ap_on_re_us/us_web_voting_1

The Minimalist Website

So your campaign does not have all the resources in the world to support a super fancy website. This is a common problem. I know all campaigns want to find a cheap solution but also want to make sure they get some bang for their buck. The natural question thus becomes "What is the bare minimum I should have on my site?"

The biggest obstacle here is overcoming a common fallacy in terms of the Internet. Too many people think the Internet is just another place to post "billboards." Information, often copied straight from the campaign pamphlet, is placed on static websites. A related problem arises where Facebook and Twitter accounts are created and then just sit idle during the campaign. I have seen this mistake done by organizations and businesses, but it is especially troubling when politicians fall victim to this error. The Internet can be used for so much more, and it makes little sense to hand out fliers with the website that contains the same information that the flier did.

What needs to be done to overcome this common reaction to the Internet is to sit down one evening with your committee and ask "How does the Internet relate to our campaign strategy?" Try not to think of the Internet as some sort of remote, detached, and amorphous part of the campaign. It is a tool that should be kept very close to you and used to accomplish specific, well defined goals. It can do so much more then just announce you are running for an office.

Now that there is an understanding of purpose, we can go back to the original question. "What is the bare minimum I should have on my site?" Part of the answer will depend on the office you are running for and where you have deemed the Internet to fall in you campaign strategy. However, there are a few things that you should consider. First, what sort of information can be posted on the web that cannot easily be put on a pamphlet, commercial, etc.? This could be a more personal biography. This category tends to be the one that is most used, but often leans towards the side of being a "billboard." It is important and should be present, but will not make your website as useful can it could be. Secondly, and more importantly, add resources that encourage voters to visit more then once. This could be news, a blog, or a Twitter feed. It will get voters more engaged (and see your name and face more often) and show that you are actively committed to solving the needs of the constituency. Finally, a little interaction cannot hurt. For example, have a place for voters to submit comments or questions. It will help make the website part of your campaign, and not just another advertisement.

I hope you are not too disappointed that I am not providing a concise formula for what is the bare minimum needed in a campaign website. The truth is there is no one formula. Like I mentioned before, you have to determine what function your website will serve in your campaign. The minimalist website should be unique. What I have done is provide a rough outline to determine what that formula is for your own website. It may also help to talk to someone who has experience with websites. They can help you generate ideas. To often the extent of the strategy is simply just to have a website, period. The Internet deserves a bit more attention then that.

One final note: I know what you are probably thinking - "Doing more then just static information sounds expensive." In some cases it may be, but if you get a developer who knows what they are doing and are honest about costs, the expense should be marginal. Embedding a Twitter feed just takes a few minutes and you should not be charged much if anything more for one. Talk with your developer or someone else who knows the Internet to find ways to reduce costs. Weigh the costs and benefits of each proposed element to the website in order to find what the minimum you will need. And what every you decide do not just have a website, have a useful "minimalist" site.

The next post will be May 26th.