Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T08:47:54.080Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Political Participation and “Teledemocracy”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

F. Christopher Arterton*
Affiliation:
The Graduate School of Political Management

Extract

The signs are abundant that many of the institutions and processes of American politics are becoming increasingly direct. As communication technologies erode the mediating roles played by secondary leadership, citizens and public officials interact directly with each other more intensively and more frequently.

As this gale has moved through our political system, different scholars have noted their own particular “straw in the wind.” By far the most attention has been given to the declining capacity of party as a mechanism mediating between voters and office holders (Polsby, 1983; Kirkpatrick, 1978). A different viewpoint comes from Samuel Kernell, who has revised Richard Neustadt's work on the presidency by arguing that presidential power is increasingly secured and exercised through public opinion influence (Kernell, 1986). Those who have studied the activities of incumbent Congressmen and Senators note that they have also extended their direct contact with constituents: not only have the flows of mail into and out of congressional offices increased markedly over the past two decades, but the establishment of C-Span has brought congressional business into literally millions of homes (Abramson, Arterton, and Orren, 1988). Moreover, in a constant search for new ways of contacting citizens, congressmen are in the forefront of experimentation with cable television, satellites, VCRs and computer communications (Arterton, 1987).

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The American Political Science Association 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Abramson, Jeffrey, Arterton, F. Christopher and Orren, Gary R. 1988. The Electronic Commonwealth: The Impact of New Media Technologies upon Democratic Politics. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Arterton, F. Christopher. 1984. Media Politics: The News Strategies of Presidential Campaigns. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
Arterton, F. Christopher. 1987. Representation, Information Technology and Democratic Values. Washington, DC: Report to the Office of Technology Assessment, May.Google Scholar
Arterton, F. Christopher. 1987. Teledemocracy: Can Technology Protect Democracy? Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Barber, Benjamin. 1984. Strong Democracy: Participatory Politics for a New Age. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ginsberg, Benjamin. 1986. The Captive Public. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1986. Going Public: New Strategies of Presidential Leadership. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.Google Scholar
Kirkpatrick, Jeanne. 1978. Dismantling the Politics. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.Google Scholar
Magleby, David. 1984. Direct Legislation: Voting on Ballot Propositions in the United States. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orton, Barry M. Media-based Issue Balloting for Regional Planning. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, Doctoral Dissertation, University Microfilms No. 80–13, 177.Google Scholar
Polsby, Nelson. 1983. Consequences of Party Reform. New York: Oxford.Google Scholar