So maybe the Internet is a cure for stupidity after all

A dozen years after presidential politics first moved online, it's remarkable how entirely unremarkable it is to page through the findings in a newly published Pew report on the Internet's role so far in the 2008 election.

In increasingly greater numbers, adults are using the Web to regularly contribute to the political conversation--if not to contribute to the politician of their choice. And no surprise, that's why three of the contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination basically declared their candidacies on the Internet.

None of this has been lost on the party hacks managing the Barack Obama and John McCain campaigns, who have followed the voters to their cyber hang-outs on social networks. I wonder how an increasingly Internet-savvy electorate will react to blatant attempts at crowd manipulation. I'm not saying this is going to happen, but the past is often prologue when you're talking about presidential politics. Take a gander at the following table. Already, most adults have a healthy distrust of what they deem to be misinformation and propaganda.

(Credit: Pew Internet & American Life Project)

The more intriguing trend is that the promise and the potential of the Internet are fusing in a way that may--and here I'm hedging--help us break out of the quadrennial descent into stupidity which informs most modern presidential campaigns. Politicians may still treat voters like children, but according to Pew, people are using the Internet to move "beyond the sound bite." To wit:

•  More than one-third of adults have watched politically-related videos.

•  Some 16 percent of adults have read candidate position papers online while 9 percent have read the full text of a candidate's speech online.

•  39 percent of adults say they've gone online to fetch original, or unfiltered, documents, or observe campaign events.

Pretty good, but there's ample room to grow. And of course, this remains part of a slow-motion story in development. Not surprisingly, the young grok this stuff more quickly than the their parents.

(Credit: Pew Internet & American Life Project)

Then again, I'm an optimist (at least most of the time). I'm curious on your take now.

[ghostofitpast]

Bear in mind that what people say is not always what they do. Think of all the polls that screwed up during the primaries! We need to bear in mind the wisdom of the Federalist Papers here. Whatever those polled may say, there is always the danger that the majority will bend the minority to its will. The Internet may provide more outlets for minority opinions, but it also provides more sticks for the majority!

[charlie cooper]

point well taken

[Riquez-001]

Hold on a moment. This is all very well and good, but since politicians are the greatest proponents of misinformation and propaganda in the first place, where does that leave us?

[benjaminstraight]

Anyone can post anything on the internet.

[godofmj]

I think this is complete BS. Having more information with more ease does not imply making the wise choice. I have generally come to believe that a large crowd of people (like an electorate) basically dumb down to the intelligence of the median person (or worse). That was why Bush was elected, and re-elected, even though it was blatantly clear at that time that he is the wrong choice. Some more argue that his election was a result of some luck and vagaries of the electroral system. But fact that he even came close enough to win is proof of the stupidity of the masses. So while the internet may result in greater access of information, I think most of the people who use it are the ones who would have done so through other means in the past.

[c|net Reader]

Apparently, anyone with an opinion contrary to yours is stupid. That reveals more about you than you meant, it seems.

[hardedge]

You can, perhaps, alleviate ignorance with the Internet. Stupidity, on the other hand, is typically terminal.

[American_Sharecropper]

All of this is well and fine but what possible difference can it make when your choices are either the Republicrat or the Democan? It's like we are given the choice between a Police State or a Socialist slave state.... what difference does the amount of cyber - interaction make?

[c|net Reader]

The other choices, however good they may be, don't stand a chance of winning, so the best we can do is to try to improve the existing party.

[protagonistic]

The real problem here is not the ignorance or the stupidity of the voter, rather it is that your voting choice is which candidate will screw me over the least. Under these circumstances it should not surprise anyone that we end up with mediocre Presidents.

But you have to realize that when you put the candidates through what we do during the process the best and smartest are not going to apply for the job. The biggest plus to having the internet is that it just might woo a few voters away from using 30 second sound bites to make their choice.

[johnericanderson]

Was the poll taken online? Hmm. If so, the results are skewed.