Technovote 2000: Examining the Impact of Technology on the Democratic Process
By Suzanne Dale

Overview

From daily "rapid response talking points" emails for campaign supporters to interactive "real-time" fundraising events, online debates on the issues between candidates, and online voting, the technology revolution is reshaping the democratic electoral process.  This exercise provides students the opportunity to explore the impact of "cyberpolitics" on the 2000 presidential election.  Students compare and contrast the two front-runner presidential candidates' websites, review several voter education websites, and then participate in a group discussion about the impact of technology on the American political process.

Objectives

Students will:

  • Compare and contrast the two front-runner presidential candidates' websites
  • Review at least two nonpartisan voter education websites
  • Participate in a group analysis of these websites
  • Address broad discussion questions regarding the impact of technology on the democratic process

Time Required

This lesson is designed to last two class periods.  The first class period will involve research reading and discussion and the second class period will include a debriefing.

The "Technovote 2000" lesson can be expanded and tailored more specifically to the availability of computers in the classroom.  If possible, students could work in small groups at different computer terminals during the school day.  Students could also be assigned research outside of class time.

Materials

Initial Motivation

Distribute an article about the Arizona Democratic online election on March 7, 2000.  The March 10 story mentioned above is one option.  Explain to the class that Arizona was the nation's first state to cast online votes in a legally binding election.  After the students have read this article, facilitate a brief discussion about the many complex issues involved in this technological "advancement."

Suggested opening discussion questions include:

  • How did the voter turnout compare once voters used online voting in Arizona?  How might online voting facilitate increased participation in elections in general?  Will younger voters be more apt to vote online?
  • What is the "digital divide"?  Who might get left behind if voting is done primarily through the Internet?  Is voting in the United States a "right" or a "privilege"?
  • Why did the "watchdog" group, Voting Integrity Project, file a federal lawsuit on this issue?
  • What are some of the possible security and identity issues that could arise from online voting?  What about hacking and possible virus attacks?

Procedures

  1. In a class session before the group discussion, assign the students an online research project related to technology and politics.  Ask them to review Texas Governor George W. Bush's and Vice President Al Gore's official presidential campaign websites:  http://www.georgewbush.com and http://www.gore2000.org.

    Instruct them to "score" the sites on the following suggested criteria:
    1. Speed of downloading:  rank 1(slow) – 5 (fast)
    2. Ease of making financial contributions, if one were to contribute:  rank 1 (difficult) – 5 (fast)
    3. Ease of volunteering for the campaign, if one were to do so:  rank 1 (difficult) – 5 (fast)
    4. Will this site provide a real understanding of the candidates' position on substantive issues?:
      rank 1 (no) – 5 (yes)
       
  2. Ask the students to review two of the nonpartisan voter education sites listed below (you may want to assign the sites so that every one is covered):

    3. Cable News Network (CNN):  http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/
     Democracy Network:  http://www.dnet.org
    Election Search:  http://www.electionsearch2000.org
     Freedom Channel:  http://www.FreedomChannel.com
    Grassroots.com, Inc.:  http://www.grassroots.com
     OneDemocracy.com:  http://www.OneDemocracy.com
    Project Vote Smart:  http://www.vote-smart.org
    Public Agenda Online:  http://www.publicagenda.com

    Note:  Some of these sites have been critiqued by teachers and are featured in the Election 2000 section of The American President website. 

    They should critique the websites according to the following criteria:

      1. Is the information on this site easy to find and read?
      2. Does the information on the site seem relatively up to date?
      3. Does this site focus on current campaign issues of substantive value?
      4. Is there a bias to this site?  Does the narrative provide more than one political perspective?
      5. If you were using this site to find further background before you cast your vote for president, would the information enhance your ability to distinguish between candidates?
      6. Are there other particular features of this site that would be beneficial to voters?
  1. After students have completed the independent (or small group) website analyses, they should be separated into small discussion groups.  The students should share their rankings of the candidates' and analyses of the voter education websites, and compare perspectives with their classmates. 
  2. Pose some additional, broader discussion questions regarding the impact of technology on the democratic process.  Here are some suggestions:
    1. How are the presidential candidates attempting to harness the power of the Internet to educate voters? Will it work?
    2. Will the voter education sites you explored really be helpful in better educating voters?  How?
    3. Who might get left behind as more information and opportunities are made available on the Internet?

Assessment

Student evaluations should be based on their strengths in the following areas:

  • Ability to compare and critically analyze the two front-runner presidential candidates' websites
  • Ability to find relevant and educational material on voter education websites, and to critique these sights for their informational value and ease of navigation
  • Participation in the group website analysis and "Technovote 2000" group discussion

Suzanne Dale is a Seattle-based program director for Junior Statesmen.  Prior to recently returning to Junior Statesmen, she served in the White House Press and Intergovernmental Affairs Offices from 1995-1998.