Technology on the Campaign Trail

So election day is this Tuesday, and there's this interesting article in The Washington Post Outlook section today called You Tube? It's So Yesterday about what the authors think some new uses of technology in politics will be in the somewhat near future.

They give a lot of examples, but three in particular were really interesting (and pertinent to this class.) The first is their discussion of the incredible popularity of MMORPGs and how they have already started to play a role (no pun intended!) in politics. Here's a (longish, but fun) quotation:

"When former Virginia governor Mark Warner showed up this year in the online virtual world "Second Life" to talk to voters before he abandoned a presidential bid, the event was overlooked by everybody but geek blog BoingBoing.net. Too bad. Places like "Second Life," with its 1 million "residents," and World of Warcraft, a massive online role-playing game, are regularly outdrawing networks such as CNN and Fox. In time, virtual campaigning will be an essential part of any successful campaign, and "gaming outreach coordinators" may be a hot commodity for the 2008 candidates.

It's easy to imagine a 2008 primary season in which politicians begin raising armies of followers on World of Warcraft and Ultima Online. The first candidate who does so may be mocked -- until her opponent's supporters notice thousands of political warlocks, chanting slogans, infiltrating banquets and chat rooms. Just imagine the battle of Helm's Deep from "The Lord of the Rings" with Democrats and Republicans instead of Orcs and Elves."

What surprises (and pleases) me is that the very mainstream Post has published an article that shows a good deal of respect for new media like online games. And I had no idea that Mark Warner actually made an appearance in one of those game worlds. That is actually pretty cool-- although I fear that this political infiltration of technology might detract from the actual gaming experience.

The other two examples that really struck me are of technologies that would allow political candidates to target specific subsets of their desired voting audiences. One of these technologies is just an increasing sophistication of the use of corporate data to categorize different kinds of potential voters, and then tailor your campaign's message to them. For example: "With better corporate data, instead of "Swing-vote Soccer Moms," data managers will be examining the persuasion habits of "Abercrombie & Fitch Republicans," and the particular unreliability of "Shrek Democrats." Most useful of all: detailed reports about the moods, smells and sounds most likely to make disaffected independents get out and vote."

Lastly, get a load of this: apparently, there is already mobile social software that runs on your BlackBerry that can tell you where the closest diner is, or where your friends are. Without too much additional innovation, this could be transformed into a political, not just social, tool.

The authors write: "'Mobile political affinity' software would measure local political demographics. Subscribers would continually and anonymously transmit their political preferences. That's how you would know that 61 percent of the people in your cafe disapprove of the war in Iraq. More sophisticated software would let you find out whether you are in a gay-friendly area, or a conservative Christian area -- a virtual political and cultural weather map.

Political affinity software would take the guesswork out of finding your political community. And, of course, parties and politicians would become interested in the possibilities for even more sophisticated ways to redraw districts. "

Now, it seems to me that although mobile political affinity software would allow politicians to know with ever-greater specificity where certain types of voters were, it would have a negative impact on our own political communities. People might be more likely to hang out, shop, or live in places where their own political/cultural preferences matched the overall community ones. And I think that we need more, not less, mixing of people in this country. I think Republican and Democratic voters need to talk to each other more, not less.