Direct democracy may be key to a happier American democracy


 and in the Conversation: “Is American democracy still “by the people, for the people?” According to recent research, it may not be. Martin Gilens at Princeton University confirms that the wishes of the American working and middle class play essentially no role in our nation’s policy making. A BBC story rightly summarized this with the headline: US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy.

However new research by Benjamin Radcliff and Gregory Shufeldt suggests a ray of hope.

Ballot initiatives, they argue, may better serve the interests of ordinary Americans than laws passed by elected officials….

Today, 24 states allow citizens to directly vote on policy matters.

This year, more than 42 initiatives already are approved for the ballot in 18 states.

Voters in California will decide diverse questions including banning plastic bags, voter approval of state expenses greater than US$2 billion dollars, improving school funding, and the future of bilingual education.

The people of Colorado will vote on replacing their current medical insurance programs with a single payer system, and in Massachusetts people may consider legalizing recreational marijuana….

However, many have pointed to problems with direct democracy in the form of ballot initiatives.

Maxwell Sterns at the University of Maryland, for example, writes that legislatures are better because initiatives are the tools of special interests and minorities. In the end, initiatives are voted upon by an unrepresentative subset of the population, Sterns concludes.

Others like Richard Ellis of Willamette University argue that the time-consuming process of gathering signatures introduces a bias toward moneyed interests. Some suggest this has damaged direct democracy in California, where professional petition writers andpaid signature gatherers dominate the process. Moneyed interests also enjoy a natural advantage in having the resources that ordinary people lack to mount media campaigns to support their narrow interests.

To curb this kind of problem, bans on paying people per signature are proposed in many states, but have not yet passed any legislature. However, because Californians like direct democracy in principle, they have recently amended the process to allow for a review and revision, and they require mandatory disclosures about the funding and origins of ballot initiatives.

Finally, some say initiatives can be confusing for voters, like the two recent Ohio propositions concerning marijuana, where one ballot proposition essentially canceled out the other. Similarly, Mississippi’s Initiative 42 required marking the ballot in two places for approval but only one for disapproval, resulting in numerous nullified “yes” votes.

Routes to happiness

Despite these flaws, our research shows that direct democracy might improve happiness in two ways.

One is through its psychological effect on voters, making them feel they have a direct impact on policy outcomes. This holds even if they may not like, and thus vote against, a particular proposition. The second is that it may indeed produce policies more consistent with human well being.

The psychological benefits are obvious. By allowing people literally to be the government, just as in ancient Athens, people develop higher levels of political efficacy. In short, they may feel they have some control over their lives. Direct democracy can give people political capital because it offers a means by which citizens may place issues on the ballot for popular vote, giving them an opportunity both to set the agenda and to vote on the outcome.

We think this is important today given America’s declining faith in government. Overall today only 19 percent believe the government is run for all citizens. The same percentage trusts government to mostly do what is right. The poor and working classes are even more alienated….(More)”

Democracy Dashboard


The Brookings Democracy Dashboard is a collection of data designed to help users evaluate political system and governmental performance in the United States. The Democracy Dashboard displays trends in democracy and governance in seven key areas: Elections administration; democratic participation and voting; public opinion; institutional functioning in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches; and media capacity.

The dashboard—and accompanying analyses on the FixGov blog—provide information that can help efforts tScreen Shot 2016-01-27 at 2.01.03 PMo strengthen democracy and improve governance in the U.S.

Data will be released on a rolling basis during 2016 and expanded in future election years. Scroll through the interactive charts below to explore data points and trends in key areas for midterm and presidential elections and/or download the data in Excel format here »….(More)”

 

What World Are We Building?


danah boyd at Points: “….Knowing how to use data isn’t easy. One of my colleagues at Microsoft Research — Eric Horvitz — can predict with startling accuracy whether someone will be hospitalized based on what they search for. What should he do with that information? Reach out to people? That’s pretty creepy. Do nothing? Is that ethical? No matter how good our predictions are, figuring out how to use them is a complex social and cultural issue that technology doesn’t solve for us. In fact, as it stands, technology is just making it harder for us to have a reasonable conversation about agency and dignity, responsibility and ethics.

Data is power. Increasingly we’re seeing data being used to assert power over people. It doesn’t have to be this way, but one of the things that I’ve learned is that, unchecked, new tools are almost always empowering to the privileged at the expense of those who are not.

For most media activists, unfettered Internet access is at the center of the conversation, and that is critically important. Today we’re standing on a new precipice, and we need to think a few steps ahead of the current fight.

We are moving into a world of prediction. A world where more people are going to be able to make judgments about others based on data. Data analysis that can mark the value of people as worthy workers, parents, borrowers, learners, and citizens. Data analysis that has been underway for decades but is increasingly salient in decision-making across numerous sectors. Data analysis that most people don’t understand.

Many activists will be looking to fight the ecosystem of prediction — and to regulate when and where prediction can be used. This is all fine and well when we’re talking about how these technologies are designed to do harm. But more often than not, these tools will be designed to be helpful, to increase efficiency, to identify people who need help. Their positive uses will exist alongside uses that are terrifying. What do we do?One of the most obvious issues is the limited diversity of people who are building and using these tools to imagine our future. Statistical and technical literacy isn’t even part of the curriculum in most American schools. In our society where technology jobs are high-paying and technical literacy is needed for citizenry, less than 5% of high schools offer AP computer science courses. Needless to say, black and brown youth are much less likely to have access, let alone opportunities. If people don’t understand what these systems are doing, how do we expect people to challenge them?

One of the most obvious issues is the limited diversity of people who are building and using these tools to imagine our future. Statistical and technical literacy isn’t even part of the curriculum in most American schools. In our society where technology jobs are high-paying and technical literacy is needed for citizenry, less than 5% of high schools offer AP computer science courses. Needless to say, black and brown youth are much less likely to have access, let alone opportunities. If people don’t understand what these systems are doing, how do we expect people to challenge them?

We must learn how to ask hard questions of technology and of those making decisions based data-driven tech. And opening the black box isn’t enough. Transparency of data, algorithms, and technology isn’t enough. We need to build assessment into any system that we roll-out. You can’t just put millions of dollars of surveillance equipment into the hands of the police in the hope of creating police accountability, yet, with police body-worn cameras, that’s exactly what we’re doing. And we’re not even trying to assess the implications. This is probably the fastest roll-out of a technology out of hope, and it won’t be the last. How do we get people to look beyond their hopes and fears and actively interrogate the trade-offs?

Technology plays a central role — more and more — in every sector, every community, every interaction. It’s easy to screech in fear or dream of a world in which every problem magically gets solved. To make the world a better place, we need to start paying attention to the different tools that are emerging and learn to frame hard questions about how they should be put to use to improve the lives of everyday people.

We need those who are thinking about social justice to understand technology and those who understand technology to commit to social justice….(More)”

Can We Use Data to Stop Deadly Car Crashes?


Allison Shapiro in Pacific Standard Magazine: “In 2014, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio decided to adopt Vision Zero, a multi-national initiative dedicated to eliminating traffic-related deaths. Under Vision Zero, city services, including the Department of Transportation, began an engineering and public relations plan to make the streets safer for drivers, pedestrians, and cyclists. The plan included street re-designs, improved accessibility measures, and media campaigns on safer driving.

The goal may be an old one, but the approach is innovative: When New York City officials wanted to reduce traffic deaths, they crowdsourced and used data.

Many cities in the United States—from Washington, D.C., all the way to Los Angeles—have adopted some version of Vision Zero, which began in Sweden in 1997. It’s part of a growing trend to make cities “smart” by integrating data collection into things like infrastructure and policing.

Map of high crash corridors in Portland, Oregon. (Map: Portland Bureau of Transportation)
Map of high crash corridors in Portland, Oregon. (Map: Portland Bureau of Transportation)

Cities have access to an unprecedented amount of data about traffic patterns, driving violations, and pedestrian concerns. Although advocacy groups say Vision Zero is moving too slowly, de Blasio has invested another $115 million in this data-driven approach.

Interactive safety map. (Map: District Department of Transportation)
Interactive safety map. (Map: District Department of Transportation)

De Blasio may have been vindicated. A 2015 year-end report released by the city last week analyzes the successes and shortfalls of data-driven city life, and the early results look promising. In 2015, fewer New Yorkers lost their lives in traffic accidents than in any year since 1910, according to the report, despite the fact that the population has almost doubled in those 105 years.

Below are some of the project highlights.

New Yorkers were invited to add to this public dialogue map, where they could list information ranging from “not enough time to cross” to “red light running.” The Department of Transportation ended up with over 10,000 comments, which led to 80 safety projects in 2015, including the creation of protected bike lanes, the introduction of leading pedestrian intervals, and the simplifying of complex intersections….

Data collected from the public dialogue map, town hall meetings, and past traffic accidents led to “changes to signals, street geometry and markings and regulations that govern actions like turning and parking. These projects simplify driving, walking and bicycling, increase predictability, improve visibility and reduce conflicts,” according to Vision Zero in NYC….(More)”

Don’t let transparency damage science


Stephan Lewandowsky and Dorothy Bishop explain in Nature “how the research community should protect its members from harassment, while encouraging the openness that has become essential to science:…

Screen Shot 2016-01-26 at 10.37.26 AMTransparency has hit the headlines. In the wake of evidence that many research findings are not reproducible, the scientific community has launched initiatives to increase data sharing, transparency and open critique. As with any new development, there are unintended consequences. Many measures that can improve science — shared data, post-publication peer review and public engagement on social media — can be turned against scientists. Endless information requests, complaints to researchers’ universities, online harassment, distortion of scientific findings and even threats of violence: these were all recurring experiences shared by researchers from a broad range of disciplines at a Royal Society-sponsored meeting last year that we organized to explore this topic. Orchestrated and well-funded harassment campaigns against researchers working in climate change and tobacco control are well documented. Some hard-line opponents to other research, such as that on nuclear fallout, vaccination, chronic fatigue syndrome or genetically modified organisms, although less resourced, have employed identical strategies….(More)”

 

Crowdfunded Journalism: A Small but Growing Addition to Publicly Driven Journalism


Nancy Vogt and Amy Mitchell at PewResearchCenter: “Projects funded through Kickstarter cut across more than 60 countries

Over the past several years, crowdfunding via the internet has become a popular way to engage public support – and financial backing – for all kinds of projects, from the Coolest Cooler to a virtual reality gaming headset to a prototype of a sailing spacecraft and a bailout fund for Greece.

From April 28, 2009 to September 15, 2015, 658 journalism-related projects proposed on Kickstarter, one of the largest single hubs for crowdfunding journalism, received full – or more than full – funding, to the tune of nearly $6.3 million.These totals – both in terms of number of projects and funds raised – trail nearly all of Kickstarter’s other funding categories, from music, theater and film to technology and games. Nevertheless, the number of funded journalism projects has seen an ongoing increase over time and includes a growing number of proposals from established media organizations.

These totals – both in terms of number of projects and funds raised – trail nearly all of Kickstarter’s other funding categories, from music, theater and film to technology and games. Nevertheless, the number of funded journalism projects has seen an ongoing increase over time and includes a growing number of proposals from established media organizations….(More)

Passive Philanthropy


PSFK: “What if you could cure cancer in your sleep? What if throwing out food meant feeding more people? What if helping coffee farmers in developing nations was as easy as a retweet? Today, businesses pay big money in order to reach the same audience as some viral tweets, and the same strategy is being applied to the reach and impact of social good campaigns. Nonprofits have also begun to leverage creative opportunities to spread awareness and raise funds to harness socially-aware citizens and rethink how social good is spread and executed. Take, for instance, an app that tracks exercise and donates to the charity of choice based on distance….

The DreamLab is a free app that turns smartphones into a research tool for cancer researchers in the Garvan Institute in Australia when their users are sleeping. Developed in conjunction with Vodaphone, the app uses the processing power of idle phones as an alternative to supercomputers which can be difficult to access. After downloading the app, participants simply open it and charge their phone. Once the phone reaches 95 percent charge, it gets to work, acting as a networked processor alongside other users with the app. Each phone solves a small piece of a larger puzzle and sends it back to Garvan.

If 1,000 people are using the app, cancer puzzles can be solved 30x faster.

As DreamLab researchers work toward finding a cure for cancer, Feeding Forward is working toward ending hunger. In America, hunger is not a problem of supply, but rather of distribution. Feeding Forward aims to solves this by connecting restaurants, grocery stores, caterers, or other businesses that are forced to throw away perishable food products with those in need.

Businesses simply need post their excess food on the platform and a driver will come pick it up to deliver to a food bank in need. Donors receive profiles of the people they helped and can also write off the donation as a charitable contribution for tax purposes. Since their launch in 2013, Feeding Forward has achieved a pick up rate of 99 percent, distributing 780,000 pounds of food saving business $3.9 million.

DreamLab and Feeding Forward are putting activities people are already going to do to use, while One Big Tweet harnesses the power of people’s social media accounts as a fundraising strategy. Cafédirect Producers’ Foundation are getting people to donate their Twitter followings for charity, asking people to sign up to post an automated tweet from a corporate sponsor who purchased the privilege at an auction for social good. The more people who donate their accounts, the higher the value of the tweet at auction. After four months, over 700 people with a collective reach of 3.2 mil followers, signed up to help make the One Big Tweet worth $49,000. While the charity is still in search of a buyer, Cafédirect promises the tweet that will be sent out through participants’ accounts will only happen once and be “safe enough for your Gran to read.” All money from the sale will go directly to continuing the work they do with coffee and tea farmers in Africa, Asia, and Latin America…(MoreMore)

Campaigning in the Twenty-First Century


Updated book by Dennis W. Johnson: “In view of the 2016 US election season, the second edition of this book analyzes the way political campaigns have been traditionally run and the extraordinary changes that have occurred since 2012. Dennis W. Johnson looks at the most sophisticated techniques of modern campaigning—micro-targeting, online fundraising, digital communication, the new media—and examines what has changed, how those changes have dramatically transformed campaigning, and what has remained fundamentally the same despite new technologies and communications.

Campaigns are becoming more open and free-wheeling, with greater involvement of activists (especially through social media) and average voters alike. At the same time, they have become more professionalized, and the author has experience managing and marketing the process. Campaigning in the Twenty-First Century illustrates the daunting challenges for candidates and professional consultants as they try to get their messages out to voters. Ironically, the more open and robust campaigns become, the greater is the need for seasoned, flexible, and imaginative professional consultants… (More)”

Big Data in U.S. Agriculture


Megan Stubbs at the Congressional Research Service: “Recent media and industry reports have employed the term big data as a key to the future of increased food production and sustainable agriculture. A recent hearing on the private elements of big data in agriculture suggests that Congress too is interested in potential opportunities and challenges big data may hold. While there appears to be great interest, the subject of big data is complex and often misunderstood, especially within the context of agriculture.

There is no commonly accepted definition of the term big data. It is often used to describe a modern trend in which the combination of technology and advanced analytics creates a new way of processing information that is more useful and timely. In other words, big data is just as much about new methods for processing data as about the data themselves. It is dynamic, and when analyzed can provide a useful tool in a decisionmaking process. Most see big data in agriculture at the end use point, where farmers use precision tools to potentially create positive results like increased yields, reduced inputs, or greater sustainability. While this is certainly the more intriguing part of the discussion, it is but one aspect and does not necessarily represent a complete picture.

Both private and public big data play a key role in the use of technology and analytics that drive a producer’s evidence-based decisions. Public-level big data represent records collected, maintained, and analyzed through publicly funded sources, specifically by federal agencies (e.g., farm program participant records and weather data). Private big data represent records generated at the production level and originate with the farmer or rancher (e.g., yield, soil analysis, irrigation levels, livestock movement, and grazing rates). While discussed separately in this report, public and private big data are typically combined to create a more complete picture of an agricultural operation and therefore better decisionmaking tools.

Big data may significantly affect many aspects of the agricultural industry, although the full extent and nature of its eventual impacts remain uncertain. Many observers predict that the growth of big data will bring positive benefits through enhanced production, resource efficiency, and improved adaptation to climate change. While lauded for its potentially revolutionary applications, big data is not without issues. From a policy perspective, issues related to big data involve nearly every stage of its existence, including its collection (how it is captured), management (how it is stored and managed), and use (how it is analyzed and used). It is still unclear how big data will progress within agriculture due to technical and policy challenges, such as privacy and security, for producers and policymakers. As Congress follows the issue a number of questions may arise, including a principal one—what is the federal role?…(More)”

‘Design thinking’ is changing the way we approach problems


Tim Johnson in University Affairs on “Why researchers in various disciplines are using the principles of design to solve problems big and small” : “A product of the same trends and philosophies that gave us smartphones, laptop computers and internet search engines, design thinking is changing the way some academics approach teaching and research, the way architects design classrooms and how leaders seek to solve the world’s most persistent problems.

Cameron Norman is a long-time supporter of design thinking (or DT) and an adjunct lecturer at the University of Toronto’s Dalla Lana School of Public Health. He notes that designers, especially product designers, are typically experts in conceptualizing problems and solving them– ideal skills for tackling a wide range of issues, from building a better kitchen table to mapping out the plans on a large building. “The field of design is the discipline of innovation,” he says. “[Design thinking] is about taking these methods, tools and ideas, and applying them in other areas.”

Design thinking centres on the free flow of ideas – far-out concepts aren’t summarily dismissed – and an unusually enthusiastic embrace of failure. “Design thinkers try to figure out what the key problem is – they look around and try to understand what’s going on, and come up with some wild ideas, thinking big and bold, on how to solve it,” Dr. Norman says. “They assume they’re not going to get it right the first time.”

If you were looking to build a better mousetrap, you’d prototype a model, test it for weaknesses, then either trash it and start again, or identify the problems and seek to correct them. DT does the same thing, but in an increasingly broad array of areas, from social policy to healthcare to business.

Deborah Shackleton, dean of design and dynamic media at Emily Carr University of Art + Design in Vancouver, was an early adopter of DT. “Design thinking is a mindset. You can use it as a tool or a technique. It’s very adaptable,” she says.

In 2005, ECUAD revamped much of its curriculum in design and dynamic media, looking to shift the focus from more traditional methods of research, like literature reviews, to something called “generative research.” “It’s the idea that you would invite the participants – for whom the design is intended – to be part of the creation process,” Dr. Shackleton says. She adds that various tools, like “co-creation kits” (which include a range of activities to engage people on a variety of cognitive and emotional levels) and ethnographic and cultural probes (activities which help participants demonstrate details about their private lives to their design partners), prove very useful in this area.

Collaboration among various fields is an important part of the design thinking process. At the University of Alberta, Aidan Rowe, an associate professor in design studies, is using design thinking to help the City of Edmonton improve services for people who are homeless. “Design is a truly interdisciplinary discipline,” says Dr. Rowe. “We always need someone to design with and for. We don’t design for ourselves.”….

Design thinkers often speak of “human-centered design” and “social innovation,” concepts that flow from DT’s assertion that no single person has the answer to a complex problem. Instead, it focuses on collective goals and places a premium on sustainability, community, culture and the empowerment of people, says Greg Van Alstyne, director of research and co-founder of the Strategic Innovation Lab, or sLab, at OCAD University. “It means you go about your problem-solving in a more holistic way. We can say ‘human-centered,’ but it’s actually ‘life-centered,’” Mr. Van Alstyne explains. “Our brand of design thinking is amenable to working within social systems and improving the lot of communities.”

 

Design thinking is also transforming university campuses in a tangible way. One example is at the University of Calgary’s Taylor Institute for Teaching and Learning, which is undergoing a $40-million renovation. “The whole space is designed to help students connect, communicate, collaborate and create knowledge,” says Lynn Taylor, vice-provost, teaching and learning. “Traditional learning was focused on the facts and concepts and procedures of a discipline, and we’re moving toward the goal of having students think far more deeply about their learning.”

To create this new space within a two-floor, 4,000-square-metre building that formerly served as an art museum, the university turned to Diamond Schmitt Architects, who have designed similar spaces at a number of other Canadian campuses. The new space, scheduled to open in February, prioritizes flexibility, with movable walls and collapsible furniture, and the seamless integration of technology.

Lead architect Don Schmitt observes that in a traditional campus building, which usually contains a long corridor and individual classrooms, conversation tends to gravitate to the only true public space: the hallway. “There’s a sense that more learning probably happens outside the classroom or between the classrooms, than happens inside the classroom,” he says.

Gone is the old-model lecture hall, with fixed podium and chairs. They’ve been replaced by a much more malleable space, which in a single day can act as a dance studio, movie theatre, lecture space, or just a big area for students to get together. “It’s about individual learning happening informally, quiet study, gregarious social activity, group study, group projects, flexible studio environments, changeable, ‘hack-able’ spaces and lots of flexibility to use different places in different ways,” Mr. Schmitt explains….(More)”