As the United States continues to ward off right-wing populist movements, academics, researchers, and technologists attempt to use AI and big data to improve government efficiency by bridging the gap between voters and elected officials. The question to ask, however, is whether this is what the US—or perhaps other democracies—require in this time of insecurity.
A prominent technology gaining momentum in this regard is Pol.is, which is programmed and maintained by members of the Computational Democracy Project, a group of data scientists based in the US envisioning a ‘world in which governance better reflects public will.’ In its essence, Pol.is is a social networking platform that allows for a more reflective and sophisticated political dialogue. The software collects the consensus after the participants have deliberated on the platform and can draft the results into an in-depth report for the benefit of decision-makers. The results are quite promising. Governments like Taiwan have used this platform to connect with constituents for more substantial insights into their experiences.
Is this technology a lifeline for American democracy? Or is the solution premised on a misdiagnosis of the issues plaguing US politics? To evaluate the merits of Pol.is, we need to first understand the influences responsible for the vulnerable state of American democracy.
What is the problem?
The foremost threat to the sanctity of democracy is economic inequality. As Oren M. Levin-Waldman writes in his paper How Inequality Undermines Democracy, ‘unequal distribution of wealth and income may adversely affect individuals’ ability to participate in the democratic process as equals.’ When one’s economic status comes to ‘adversely affect’ their political status as equal to others in society, we see a contradiction emerging between one’s economic and political status in the world. Citizens are simultaneously equal in their democratic rights and unequal in their economic conditions.
It has to be noted that democracies are capable of bringing one’s democratic and economic existence into equal alignment, bridging the gap between those democratic rights and economic conditions. Increased democratization proves to be a strong influence for implementing favourable economic policies such as higher wages and labour regulation. However, when increasingly harsh economic conditions threaten this alignment for the majority, and when democratic polity becomes ill-equipped to act as a counter-force to these economic trends, the legitimacy of democratic representation and associated government institutions come under threat. The intense economic inequality in America is an existential threat to its democracy.
In the US, factors such as income inequality and lower levels of social mobility have disconnected voters from democratic institutions, and boxed them out of the power they grant. When the electoral systems in place that connect you to the levers of power fail to service you, disillusionment concerning your standing within the governing system is inevitable.
What is the solution?
How can Americans data contributions to software like Pol.is get them out of this debacle? Pol.is could be highly effective in gathering the lived experiences of individuals disillusioned with American public institutions of representation and legislation. All in hopes of coming to a more holistic understanding of how each level of their government is falling short of their obligations to the people. If the platform became widely used, it would likely succeed in incorporating more voices into political discourse in a meaningful and productive manner, which would be good for American democracy in itself.
There is clear promise in Pol.is and how it fills a need in society. To understand the potential of Pol.is, we need to look at how decision-makers in the US with authority to fix these governmental and public administrative institutions are currently harnessing data. Can dialogue concerning institutions which fail to offer actionable solutions to problems facing people help fix the institutions themselves?
In late 2020, Pew Research Center released a study that a clear majority (63%) of US adults favour a government-funded healthcare option. Yet, America remains one of the only developed nations without universal healthcare. Healthcare is not an anomalous instance of the US government neglecting public consensus—two-thirds of Americans think the government should take harsher climate action and 76% of voters support a ban on lawmakers from trading stocks. Still, these issues go seemingly untouched by government policy.
With such statistically solid evidence favouring policies, it appears as if the issue is not a lack of data but a lack of accountability. The continual emphasis on solving current policy dilemmas with more astute data attacks the symptom and not the cause. The symptom is a disparaged, disunited populace; the cause is the inadequate responsiveness of the US government to administer policies favoured by the people.
Obtaining more sophisticated statistical insight into policy requests on behalf of the greater populace does not lead to the actualization of these requests, given the unfair influence of wealth on the realization of political decisions. Trends such as the increased wealth gap and changing labour market have resulted in unequal economic opportunities that have led to the decay in both the responsiveness and legitimacy of American democracy for the majority of its citizens. The consequences of these trends are compounded by an institutional failure to properly hold the government accountable to the people’s will. Our discourse has just failed alongside it.
It is not a crumbling public discourse that is edging American democracy closer to the cliff; instead, it is the institutional failings of democracy that have poisoned the well of discourse. More specifically, the conventional methods for US citizens to engage with their government (voting, writing to elected officials, protesting, etc.) are insufficient for addressing the array of problems posed by a changing economic landscape. This is the reason why Americans become so sensitive towards politics – and the reason why software like Pol.is starts to seem necessary.
The notion that the lack of responsiveness to these issues (wealth gap, shifting labour market, lower levels of social mobility) is a lack of communicative consensus among citizens is false. As Robert Dahl points out in his book Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition, a key characteristic of democracy is “the continuing responsiveness of the government to the preference of its citizens, considered as political equals,” The reality of an unequal economic system establishes a systematic preference of government responsiveness to those elite citizens. This preference is evident through a multivariate analysis of US government responsiveness to average voters compared to the responsiveness when these same interests are aligned with economic elite preferences. With such drastic influence of economic elites, the chances for substantive political engagement of the general populace dwindle.
Americans can, with the help of projects like Pol.is, find a more accurate and more representative consensus of what they would like their government to do. Still, if we fail to acknowledge that the issue resides in the fact that the US government fails to properly align itself with the public consensus—independently of how accurately that consensus is estimated—their democratic woes will persist. The current diagnosis of the problems facing contemporary American democracy overemphasizes the issue of crumbling political dialogue and spotty communication. What we need to direct our attention to instead is the persistent failure of American political institutions to adequately respond to voters’ needs. Additionally, we should focus our attention to other factors that tend to exacerbate this institutional failure: disparities of wealth, inequities in the labour market, and economic exclusion in general. Until these issues are addressed, the impact of Pol.is will be increasingly negligible. Or, to be more hyperbolic, how Pol.is seeks to cure US politics is equivalent to putting a band-aid on a mortal wound.
Jack Porter is an incoming MA candidate in the ‘Political and Legal Thought’ program at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, Canada.