On the question of citizen blogging, cyber-optimists hold the view that it allows citizens to challenge the traditional journalistic process, shape the news directly and communicate with politicians interactively via new media, while cyber-pessimists respond that political actors are interested in the dissemination of information rather than democratic interaction.

In response to Prof. Dr.-Ing. Helga Breitner

Political communication scholars are keenly concerned with the extent to which new media is affecting politics. This question can be explored by examining the current debate over whether the new interactive media are strengthening or undermining politics through the creation of a ‘digital democracy’.

Digital democracy could be understood as ‘a collection of attempts to practice democracy without the limits of time, space and other physical conditions, using ICT (Information and communications technology) instead, as an addition, not a replacement for traditional analogue political practices.

Political communication scholars are keenly concerned with the extent to which new media is affecting politics. This question can be explored by examining the current debate over whether the new interactive media are strengthening or undermining politics through the creation of a ‘digital democracy’.

The last two decades have witnessed the opening up, through new media, of a new arena for grassroots political debate among individuals from across the political spectrum. This has broken down the boundaries to define the audiences between mass media and new media, and the channels for communication-one to one, one too many then many to many-have both increased the complexity and intensified the proliferation of information.

Recent years have witnessed both the critical improvement of new forms of media and their proliferation; from their emergence as the obscure and arcane province of an elite few, they have spread and are now used by millions. Not surprisingly, scholars and experts are increasingly interested in evaluating the benefits and drawbacks of new media technologies for political purposes, and a range of approaches are being employed to investigate the topic.

The scary part of using agents/bots is the very fact that they are better than us. They are provided to us by someone we trust, in most cases companies, but sometimes they are provided to us by a third party that we are not even aware of. And this is where things get messy.

In trying to determine the impact of new media on political campaigning and electioneering, the existing research has tried to examine whether new media supplants conventional media. Television is still the dominant news source, but new media's reach is growing. What is known is that new media has had a significant impact on elections and what began in the 2008 presidential campaign established new standards for how campaigns would be run. Since then, campaigns also have their outreach methods by developing targeted messages for specific audiences that can be reached via different social media platforms.

The process of digitalization offers the opportunity to foster a European public sphere by bringing people closer together and better connecting people across borders. In this way, a European space for communication on matters of common interest can be created. Creating and improving appropriate digital tools makes it easier to have large-scale public debates and to take collective action on a European level.

It has been said that it is “the engagement of citizens that gives democracy its legitimacy, as well as its vitality.” But the current lack of citizen participation and existing apathy politically can be said to be a threat to its legitimacy.

Today, the Internet (along with the rise of digital media) is impacting everything from the way we shop, read the news, and live our everyday lives to the ways in which businesses, parliaments, and governments work, thus altering the fabric of social, political, and economic institutions. These digital transformations have created new challenges and opportunities for politicians, journalists, political institutions, and the (legacy) media from Internet regulation to reconnecting and engaging with citizens and audiences.

In response to Edita Hornik

The scandals concerning private data harvesting by different tools and apps on social media platforms, along with online communities of trolls and fake news with the purpose of sabotaging and tilting political processes, are among many examples that reveal how easily a digital society can render people and groups defenceless. 

Edita,

Just to add on to your post, if anyone does not know what an Internet troll is, here you can find one of the best definitions available on the web.

The scandals concerning private data harvesting by different tools and apps on social media platforms, along with online communities of trolls and fake news with the purpose of sabotaging and tilting political processes, are among many examples that reveal how easily a digital society can render people and groups defenceless. 

In response to Fujiko Nakayama

In the past, the use of digital technology in the democratic process has been focused on the use of online voting however in recent years the discussion has shifted toward an expanded role for technology in the democratic process. This discussion has now moved past a focus on the digitisation of existing processes to the reinvention of various democratic institutions and methods.

Commentators have disagreed about the effect and importance of the internet and related technologies for politics and government. Utopian accounts predict the transformation of political life through Internet-based mediation, with ‘peer production’ and on-line networks enhancing political participation and technological innovation driving policy innovation. In contrast, dystopian arguments emphasise the risks and dangers of technologically strengthened government and the ‘database state’.

Digital democracy might involve the greater use of the internet to gauge public opinion by mini referenda and e-petitions, the use of the internet to activate political debate via social media and online forums, the incorporation of mobile phone or hand-held devices to involve the public in decision making at various levels, and the replacement of traditional voting methods with e-technology solutions.

In the past, the use of digital technology in the democratic process has been focused on the use of online voting however in recent years the discussion has shifted toward an expanded role for technology in the democratic process. This discussion has now moved past a focus on the digitisation of existing processes to the reinvention of various democratic institutions and methods.

This discussion on Digital Democracy brings me to another issue that I think is not stressed enough: the current enthusiasm around technology and open government strikes me due to its lack of historical perspective. And, if history serves as any guide, advocates in the open government space would fare better in managing their (and others’) expectations about what can and cannot be achieved by technology.

In response to Fabricio Ruiz

Dorothea,

It is interesting to note that European countries have so far had very different approaches to the opportunities offered by e-democracy, depending on how concerned they are about the risk of hacking.

The Dutch government, referring to the possibility of hacking, announced that all casted votes will be counted manually for the general elections taking place last Wednesday. Until 2007, voting machines where used in Netherlands at the polling stations but it was then proved that these machines could be easily manipulated and since then e-voting is banned in the country.  France has allowed e-voting in legislative elections for its citizens abroad since 2012 but dropped the possibility this year, citing cybersecurity fears. France's legislative elections take place in June.  In Estonia legally binding remote e-voting for local, national and EU elections has been carried out eight times since 2005. So far, no hacking has been reported.

Fabricio,

The digital revolution has no doubt disrupted politics. But has it enhanced democracy? In recent years there’s been a growing disconnect between the pace of digital development and the way political and government processes work. The internet has fundamentally changed the way we go about our social and economic lives. However, the way we participate in institutional government processes, like elections and public consultations, is not significantly different from the non-internet age.

In response to Dorothea Petrescu

Some researchers argue that the field of e-democracy has generally failed to live up to its own reformist rhetoric.  They claim there are instances where instead of reforming government processes through technology, edemocracy projects have tended to focus either on lowering the costs and increasing the efficiency of existing political processes or on analysing the civic participation that occurs outside of purposebuilt e-democracy platforms.

Dorothea,

It is interesting to note that European countries have so far had very different approaches to the opportunities offered by e-democracy, depending on how concerned they are about the risk of hacking.

The Dutch government, referring to the possibility of hacking, announced that all casted votes will be counted manually for the general elections taking place last Wednesday. Until 2007, voting machines where used in Netherlands at the polling stations but it was then proved that these machines could be easily manipulated and since then e-voting is banned in the country.  France has allowed e-voting in legislative elections for its citizens abroad since 2012 but dropped the possibility this year, citing cybersecurity fears. France's legislative elections take place in June.  In Estonia legally binding remote e-voting for local, national and EU elections has been carried out eight times since 2005. So far, no hacking has been reported.

Some researchers argue that the field of e-democracy has generally failed to live up to its own reformist rhetoric.  They claim there are instances where instead of reforming government processes through technology, edemocracy projects have tended to focus either on lowering the costs and increasing the efficiency of existing political processes or on analysing the civic participation that occurs outside of purposebuilt e-democracy platforms.

@Анета, thank you for the link.  The article was very informative and user-friendly.

Digital Democracy is sometimes also referred to as Internet Democracy, or even e-Democracy.  They all refer to the same thing: using IT as well as communication technology to promote democracy.  Here is an in-depth article on what it is and how it works.  

The simile with the bottle of wine and the drop of vinegar will stay with me for a while.  It was a strong and quite appropriate way to emphasize a point.