With the advent of an open-source, consumer-driven economy, is the political world the next frontier for the wiki generation? There is already a blog on the White House website run in President Obama’s name. Shouldn’t a ‘democracy’ such as the United States use every tool that’s available to give as many citizens as possible access to the political process?

I’m not suggesting that we start electing computers into key positions. However, there are two very logical uses of the internet in politics.

1. Campaigning: Within twenty years, a presidential candidate will run a campaign using solely web tools. Speeches will be made using videos on YouTube. Debates will be held in the comments section of popular blogs. Fund raising will be done with Google adsense. This will allow low-budget independent candidates get a foothold in the system that seems to be stifling free thought.
2. Policy-decisions: The next great political revolution may come in the form of a Wikiocracy. Why not have senators and congressmen post the bills up for debate or vote on a blog and allow constituents to comment and vote on them? Connecting with politicians may re-energize a young generation who seems to have lost contact with the political system.

One of the best parts of the blogosphere is that, without needing to be submitted for editing, data and opinions can be almost instantaneously shared around the globe. A limitation of traditional blogging is the readers’ need to refresh the page to get the latest content. A website called CoverItLive.com is out the change that. It provides free live-blogging software.

The website provides a form of a chat window that can be embedded into a blog and as the writer updates the site it automatically updates the live blog. The software also allows readers to submit comments and the writer can moderate a debate or a discussion among his readers.

Possibly the best use of this technology is in conjunction with sporting events. Over this past weekend, I had the opportunity to particpate as a reader in a live blog about the Super Bowl [some of the language may be PG-13] on profootballtalk.com. The main contributor to the website, Mike Florio, was in the press area in the stadium during the game. He kept a live blog about his experience, giving his readers a view that has become available only to the privileged few.

Also this weekend, I hosted a live blog and encouraged a few of my friends on campus to contribute so that I could get a feel of what it is like to live blog on the other end.

My experiences were both very positive. The hosting window is very simple with a pane showing reader-submitted comments, one showing the window that is made public and one with very clear organized menus of settings and user statistics. The only complaint I can make about the interface is that there was no way to make hitting ‘enter’ post directly, but you must click ‘submit’ to make a comment go live.

As a reader, the process is very straight-forward and clean. I got zero negative feedback from the people submitting comments to my blog. Having participated in a few fairly large live blogs, I noticed that it sometimes seems that your comments get swallowed up because the host selects comments and the more readers submitting makes it harder to sift through them all. However, that would be expected with any large group.

Some possible uses for this technology would be:

1. Blogging about televised sporting events
2. Giving play-by-play for games not all readers can watch
3. Commenting on an election as the poll results come in

Overall, the use of CoverItLive technology is very positive.

My initial perception of Youtube is not one notable and current political news. I see it as a glorified waste of time. However, I eagerly offer my free time to Youtube if it means a good laugh. Nonetheless, I fear the site does not have the reputation to broadcast serious and important events. Take, For example, the Republican and Democratic Debates for the upcoming presidential election. By posting the debates on Youtube, people are able to blog their opinions and even have access to video footage to make new videos. But, how many people abuse these advantages? Most people do not post efficient and respectable blogs and do not make appropriate videos.

While I do see the benefits of a cheap and convenient national broadcast, I think this method cheapens the credibility of the debates and almost makes a mockery of it. One writer criticized the youtube debates by describing them as, “almost like watching Jerry Springer.” I tooned in to view some of the debates, and I could never get a way from the fact that I was watching them on Youtube, the place where I’m subject to finger-bitting babies and kidney-stealing unicorns.

In conclusion, if Youtube wants to take a more focused news broadcasting path, they should open a new site with this goal in mind. One which targets more politically informed audiences with constructive criticism to offer.