So You Want to Write the Next SOPA?

In some of the conversations that we've had about open government, we've discussed the possibility of creating a platform that will facilitate a more direct democracy, using digital tools. Essentially, we've brainstormed a forum for representatives to post working drafts of upcoming bills, giving their constituents the opportunity to submit comments and suggestions. Last night, I found out that this is already happening. While sifting through my Flipboard for the night (so cool), I came across an article posted by The Atlantic, which talks about a new platform called Madison. Co-creater of the platform Congressman Darrel Issa (R-CA) (along with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)), calls the project "an ongoing experiment in direct digital democracy." Madison was so named because of a quote that the congressmen found particularly inspiring:


"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives"
                                                                             -James Madison


The two congressmen created the platform as way to introduce a bill called the OPEN Act, a follow-up to the SOPA and PIPA bills, that would be drafted in part by everyday citizens. So far, the draft of the bill has seen participation by about 150 people, and the congressmen are pleased with the outcome. Issa went on to say that Madison is "proof that crowdsourcing can deliver better bills and a more accountable government." 


Madison still has some issues. There are a few minor barriers to entry, including signing up for an account, and it is not yet widespread enough to garner the desired level of participation, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. 


The benefits of a program like this are numerous and compelling. The most apparent benefit to me is that this may be an effective tool to eliminate, or at least minimize, some of the corruption and self interest that goes on in congress. If people across the country have the opportunity to review a bill, they will probably object to some of the outrageous earmarks and pork barrel projects. On that note, some congressmen may be concerned about proving their loyalty to their constituents without engaging in pork barrel spending, but I would submit that an open process like this would do even more to convey the loyalty and devotion to the public interest of congresspersons across the nation. 

For every good idea though, there are drawbacks. For Madison, I fear the problem will come in the form of chaos. When everybody gets a say, and everybody is gunning for their own agendas, things can get muddled very quickly. As improvements and new editions of Madison emerge, I hope there will be some way to manage this chaos, and ensure that the focus stays on the issue at hand. 


Needless to say, there are a lot of issues circulating around this idea, and whether or not we decide to create a project that aligns with open government, we should all be aware of the changes that are happening at the ground level as we speak.