Did The World Affect U.S. Democracy?

If there's a person on this planet who does not know about President Elect Barack Obama's success - the American people's success - I would be surprised. Over the last years, being outside of the United States, I have paid attention to the views outside of the United States as someone who could vote. I did not watch television. I rarely listened to the radio. But I paid attention on the Internet, and the people around me.

Last week, at the lunch break at the Caribbean Internet Forum, I was playing videos on my laptop and was surprised that simply hearing Barack Obama's voice drew a crowd from surrounding tables and started political discussion. As my friend Raul noted, I was not the only supporter of Barack Obama - but I was the only one who had a say. Still, I was in awe. There was so much interest in Barack Obama that I seriously wondered at the role of the Internet itself in his success - not in the media blitzes that were focused on the American people, but through discussion using the Internet.

After all, discussion is the true core of democracy. Voting is simply a rough metric, a decision between more than one choice made available yet a decision which ,almost by necessity, does not cover all the choices. When people vote, they spend little time considering how the question of what they are voting on came to be.

And if there is one election that has been discussed at length on the Internet, it is this past race between Barack Obama & Joe Biden vs. John McCain & Sarah Palin. The United States had many bloggers and political pundits¹ talking up a storm. Comedians such as Jon Stewart were out there - and let's not forget his spanking of mainstream media. And then there are the other people. You. Me. The people who share their thoughts (rather than those who parrot like Palin), the people who consider broader perspectives and who can hold more than 2 conflicting opinions in their mind and remain rational².

And when it comes to broader perspectives, the Internet has weighed in heavily from without the borders of the United States. While Americans were the only ones who could vote, they most certainly weren't the only ones involved in discussion. This leads me to wonder what effect the world had on the ballots cast.

Extended families outside of the United States must have spoken with their relatives - probably using VoIP technologies, email and instant messaging (land line calls around the world are pretty expensive). I expect that had an impact, somehow, on how ballots were cast. Maybe a few stray bloggers around the world made some points from the outside that mainstream media picked up on and copied³. The world was paying attention using every tool at it's disposal, and we have more tools than ever.

Yes, I am very happy that Barack Obama won. But when I look at the systems that elected him, when I look at the importance of the election, I cannot help but wonder if this is just the casino's house dropping a jackpot on the person who's been wrestling the one armed bandit for a few decades.

Are we using them right? Can we use them better? These questions are not about whether we can help someone win an election - there are enough highly paid people, some who might even be moral and ethical, pondering that question. I'm sure McCain's campaign might be wondering if a Second Life presence might have made a difference (Palin would be a simple bot to write), but that's not the question. The question is whether the world is able to discuss the issues despite these highly paid people, despite the candidates themselves, and despite themselves.

Are we getting closer to the global jury for global democracy? When you consider it, much of the world would have voted in this last election had they been able to - but due to accidents of geography compounded by geopolitical borders, they could not. But they could discuss. And that leverage, which is difficult to account for, may have been enough for the world to have an effect on the election.

Or maybe not.

It is something to consider.

¹ Apparently, to become a political pundit you have to be ordained by mass media - and this process allegedly cleanses the person of all idiocy. Allegedly.
² I think I just described the core of McCain's campaign. But evidence might say the same of Obama's.
³ I seriously wonder if that is what happened with my own post, 'Why Obama Must Win', though whether true or not is not of personal importance to me. Maybe this will get copied too. :-)