Change.gov: a special blend of Internet and politics

A new tool on Barack Obama's Web site, Change.gov, lets anyone post a question in an open forum where users vote on their favorite questions.

The most popular question?

"Will you consider legalizing marijuana so that the government can regulate it, tax it, put age limits on it, and create millions of new jobs and create a billion dollar industry right here in the U.S.?"
- S. Man, Denton.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Let's take a step back. This Web site raises more questions than just the ones posted by users. Can a Web site really bring about true transparency in government? And, to step back further: can a Web site enable serious dialogue between a nation and its elected officials?

First, a dialogue requires communication by both parties involved - in this case, the Obama administration and our nation. In media, we are sometimes tempted to think that by allowing an open forum on the Internet, we can reach everyone.

But this isn't necessarily true. According to an August 2008 survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project, 75% of adults use the Internet. This is a large number, but it isn't everyone. (As an aside, the numbers go up yearly. Check out this poll from 2006.)

And more important than who is represented in that 75% is who isn't. According to the same poll, 83% of 18-29-year-olds use the Internet, while only 33% of those in the 65+ demographic use it. Only 49% of those who make $30,000 or less per year use the Internet, while 93% of those making $75,000+ do.

Those with higher education are more likely to use the Internet; white people are slightly more likely to use the it than minorities; men are slightly more likely to use it than women.

The distribution of non-Internet users is not even across demographics - we miss sizable chunks of the population when we put any campaign entirely online.

Also, we should consider who is likely to visit Change.gov. I'd be willing to bet more Obama voters than McCain voters, more liberals than conservatives, more young people than older people.

Which brings us full circle: how did a question about legalization of marijuana end up at the top of the question rankings when only 36% of adults in the United States support legalization (versus 60% against legalization, according to a 2005 gallup poll)?

When you stack up the demographics of people who are online against those of people who support legalization, you see young people heavily represented in both groups. The question is ranked highest because of the skewed user base.

Back to defining the dialogue - can elected officials respond to Change.gov users' questions in a satisfying way, especially considering the skewed user base of the Web site? Supposing Barack Obama's campaign really did want to work toward legalization, it'd be interesting to see how much progress he could make.

He'd have to work with Congress to get federal drug laws repealed. He could also try to dissolve the DEA, which is a function of the Department of Justice. In the end, though, the laws themselves are in the hands of the legislature.

Obama will run into similar issues in trying to satisfy other concerns of Change.gov's user base. And if Obama disagrees with his constituents and does not fulfill their wishes, has he betrayed his own principles of transparency and open government?

Let me be clear: Change.gov is not a bad idea. It's a good idea. Transparency and open government are noble causes. But some people are expecting more than they're going to receive.