After the bailout plan was not approved on Tuesday, the House of Representatives' website has been overloaded with millions of emails, according to a CNN.com article, "forcing administrators to implement the 'digital version of a traffic cop' to handle the overload -- for the first time ever."
The article says that a "tidal waves of e-mails and page views began over the weekend after negotiators announced Sunday that a deal had been reached on legislation to enact a $700 billion bailout of the country's financial system." The public was able to view the agreement of the House of Reps' website so as millions of people tried to look at the details of the bailout plan, the government system's site became overwhelmed and was not able to display the page on many computers. Jeff Ventura, communications director for the House's chief administrator, called this a "massive digital busy signal." But, once the website began working again and people were able to view the details of the plan, millions of emails to the different Representatives began pouring in. Now that they have implemented the "traffic cop" on the sites, visitors will receive a try again later notification of the site has too much traffic at one time.
According to the article, "Ventura said the House.gov Web site experienced a very high number of hits when the 9/11 commission released its final report on the September 11, 2001, terror attacks against the United States, but nothing like what the site has seen in the past few days."
This shows that with the new technologies, it has made government and prominent figures closer to the public, and Americans are able to more easily get their issues heard through the Internet.
Check out the article at: House of Representatives' site overwhelmed - CNN.com
- Jessica I
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is just amazing to me. This instant feedback possibility can be both incredibly empowering and incredibly crippling to the democratic system. I love the fact that citizens can just demonstrate their support or opposition to a bill or initiative. But on the other hand, I find it very troubling that decisions made by elected officials become completely dependent on instant public opinion.
Assuming that elected officials are up there in D.C. surrounded by an army of well-informed assistants and consultants, as well as privy to all the details on proposed legislation, aren't they better equipped than "private citizens" who don't have all that information?
Also, is doing the right thing the same as following the public opinion, 100% of the time? Aren't there many occasions when doing the right thing means taking positions that are not necessarily the most popular?
It's great that we can voice our collective and individual opinions, and be heard by politicians, but isn't it scary if they become too concerned about what is popular to make every single decision they have to make?
-Raul.
I agree with Professor Reis as to both the upsides and downsides to this issue. Our country's founding fathers themselves grappled hard with this very issue: how much "democracy" was wise or unwise.
For this reason, we don't live in a "pure" democracy. We live in a democratic republic, where politically-elected representatives are meant to both be attentive to the opinions of their constituents but also stand against the whiims of what they might consider a destructive, misguided or feverishly ignorant "mob" mentality.
This gets into some messy ethical, class issues, etc., about who is fit to run for office and make decisions on behalf of the people. But, then, that's where the electorate is supposed to serve as a check and arbiter of who should hold political office. But, then, democracy is messy. No getting around that. One of the prices we pay for, and responsibilities we have toward, our freedoms.
Consider, for example, what some politicians (and judges) did or didn't do in the face of racial prejudice and hate, gender discrimination, political witch-hunting during the 1950s McCarthy era, etc. Things that for many people, in hindsight, seem no-brainers now.
But in times when the public majority wouldn't stand up for what was right, or when death threats were sent to political leaders and judges -- on controversial issues that impacted the entire nation --
somebody in a position of political power and public persuasion HAD to do the right thing, and was willing to make the personal and professional sacrifices to do so.
It's a fine and "messy" balance to maintain. But that's what makes what we have in this country very special, is it not?
- Misako M.
Post a Comment