27. The Honolulu Electronic Town Meeting

For example, see E. Cornish (ed), Communications Tomorrow: The Coming of the Information Society (Washington DC, World Future Society, 1981); R. Haigh et al. Communications in the twenty-first Century (New York, Wiley-Interscience, 1981); J. Martin, Telematic Society: A Challenge for Tomorrow (Prentice-Hall, 198 l); Y. Masuda, The Information Society as Post-Industrial Society (Washington DC, World Future Society, 1981); F. Williams, The Communications Revolution (Beverley Hills, California, Sage, 1982).

For example, see J. Danziger et al., Computers and Politics: High Technology in American Local Governments (New York, Columbia University Press, 1981); K. Laudon, Computers and Bureaucratic Reform (New York, John Wiley, 1974); K. Lenk, Automated Information Management in Public Administration (Paris, OECD, 1973).

Such as, B. Barber, “The Second American Revolution”, Channels of Communication, 1/6 (February–March 1982) 21–5; V. Campbell, “Democracy by Telephone: An Alternative to Revolution”, Avant Garde (January 1970), p. 22f; V. Campbell and J. Santos, Televote: A New Civic Communication System, Palo Alto, California, American Institute for Research, 1975); A. Etzioni, “MINERVA: an Electronic Town Hall”, Policy Sciences, 3/4 December 1972), 457–74; Etzioni, “MINERVA: a Participatory Technology System, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 27/9 (November 1971), 4–12; Etzioni et al., “Participatory Technology: the MINERVA Communication Tree”, Journal of Communications (Summer 1975); J. Galtung, “TV Communication and Public Participation” (mimeo), (RAI-Radiotelevisione Italiana, 1975); R. Gray, “The New Politronics”, Honolulu Star Bulletin (31 December 1980); B. Groombridge, Television and the People: A Program for Democratic Participation (New York, Penguin,1972). See especially the sections on the ORAKEL experiment in Germany and in England in 1971; Town Meeting, Inc., in the US, and the work of the Fools Group Theatre and Pocket Theatre in Sweden; E. Johnson, Metroplex Assembly: An Experiment in Community Education (Boston, Massachusetts, Centre for the Study of Liberal Education for Adults, 1965), describing a nine-year TV experiment in St. Louis, Missouri; K. Laudon, Communication Technology and Democratic Participation (New York, Praeger, 1977); Laudon, “Information Technology and Participation in the Political Process”, in A. Mowshowitz (ed.) Human Choice and Computers, 2 (Amsterdam, North Holland, 1980) pp. 167–91; M. Nelson, “Should We Vote by Phone?”, Johns Hopkins Magazine, (July 1975); Office of Technology Assessment, Computer-Based National Information Systems: Technology and Public Policy Issues (Washington DC, Government Printing Office, 1981); S.A. Paterson, “Televote: A Demonstration of Interactive Television via Telephone” (mimeo), Ottawa, Canada, Wired City Laboratory, Carleton University, 1976); People Talk Back, a nation-wide series of interactive TV shows about the future of Canada conducted by CBC-TV and TVO in 1979; M. Post Peyser, “A Position Paper on a Telecommunications Approach to the Observance of the Constitution’s Bicentennial” (mimeo, for the US Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution,1979); QUBE, the interactive cable service of Warner Communications; Regional Plan Association, Listening To The Metropolis: An Evaluation of the New York Region’s “Choices for ‘76” Mass Media Town Meetings (New York, Regional Plan Association, 1974); H. Sackman and N. Nie (eds), The Information Utility and Society Choice (Montvale, New Jersey, AFIPS Press, 1970), especially Part III “Potential Effects of the Information Utility on Citizen Participation and Representational Processes”; H. Sackman, Mass Information Utilities and Social Excellence (New York, Auerback, 1971); T. Sheridan, “Citizen Feedback: New Technology for Social Choice”, Technology Review 73/3 (January 1971), 46–51; J.M. Tague, “The People’s Computer: an Aid to Participatory Democracy”, in E. Mumford and H. Sackman (eds), Human Choice and Computers (Amsterdam, North Holland, 1975); S. Unger, Technology to Facilitate Citizen Participation in Government (New York, Centre for Policy Research, 1972); R. Zussman and N. Castelman, Electronic Town Hall Meetings (New York, Centre for Policy Research, 1973); and Zussman and Castelman, Politics and Electricity: Can an Electronic Town Hall Meeting Work? (New York, Centre for Policy Research, 1972).

See the journal Access of the Challenge for Change/Societe Nouvelle of the National Film Board of Canada; M. Hodgkinson, “The Media Project: Social Action and the Broadcasting Media”, Educational Broadcasting International, 14/2 (June 1981) 72–4, for a British experience; S. Roxanne Hiltz and M. Turoff, The Network Nation: Human Communication Via Computer (Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley, 1978); S. Johnson, Information and Communication Technology for the Community 2nd Edn. (Portland, Oregon, Centre for Urban Education, 1982); M. Kawahata, “HI-OVIS Project – Towards Future Optical Information Society”, Studies of Broadcasting, 16 (1980); 0. Magnuson, “Improving Public Debate with Television and Social Organization”, Education Broadcasting Review (April 1980), 35–38; M. Moss, “Two-Way Cable TV: A Community Communications System”, Public Telecommunications Review, 6 (November–December 1978), 46–49; the journal Public Vision (a newsletter of Citizens for Video Democracy, Menlo Park, California); W. Rushton, “Public Interest and Access Programing”, Public Telecommunication Review 8/1 (January–February 1980), 12–14; T. Strauss and H. Litwin, “Letter from Israel”, Public Telecommunications Review, 4/1 (January–February 1976), 46–51, interactive community TV experiment in Israel.

Please contact me at the Department of Political Science, University of Hawaii 2424 Maile Way, Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 USA.

T. Becker and C. Slaton, “Hawaii Televote: Measuring Public Opinion on Complex Policy Issues”, Political Science (New Zealand) 33/1 (July 1981), 52–83; Becker, et al., Report On New Zealand Televote (Wellington, NZ, Victoria University, 1981); T. Becker, “Teledemocracy—Bringing Power Back to the People”, The Futurist (December 1981) 6–9.

Editor’s note: this phrasing does not imply that all participants were women, but that Jim Dator is compensating for other people’s use of “he”.

These audio tapes were then transcribed, and the troupe and I went over them, removing extraneous material, correcting errors, adding or subtracting segments, injecting more—or less—humor, and then writing them in final form. The performers then memorized and performed the set pieces as they would a usual script.

The significance of this is enhanced by the fact that the Lt. Governor is required by the State Constitution to promote ways of increasing citizen participation in government, and had a reputation for being personally interested and active in actually trying to do so.

See B. Cowlan’s letter replying to Becker’s article (The Futurist April 1982) or P. Apostol, “Politics and the Threat of a New Slavery”, mimeographed paper for the Future of Politics Conference, VII World Conference on Future Studies, June 1982, Stockholm, Sweden; J. Bethke Elshtain, “Democracy and the QUBE Tube”, The Nation (7–14 August 1982) 108–10; Michael Malbin, “Teledemocracy and its Discontents”, Public Opinion (June–July 1982), p. 5f.

We are of course also interested in critiques and negative evaluations of our project, but we would prefer those that do not arise from speculation alone. If you or others have tried out the ETM concept and found it faulty in whole or part, that we definitely want to learn about.