Future Edmonton
http://futureedmonton.ca/about

Thanks for the thought provoking response.

It has been a while since I examined the underlying (or overarching) socio-cultural drivers of participation & engagement. I make a living out of what has commonly referred to as social networking (with a vaguely campaign based approach) these days – but am not always mindful of the thought processes that led me down this path in the first place over a decade ago. So long in fact – that I may gibber incoherently here (all these names/theories popping into my head now – De Landa, Foucault, Kant etc).

Although I don’t have access to statistics of TV voting and how the failure of technology and processes behind it might have affected voting – it is fair to say that based on the proliferation of TV talent shows, that the numbers of voters has not significantly dropped.

I think you are right that the technology itself is not the motivating factor. Most people vote for TV talent shows by telephone.

So authenticity (‘transparency’ in SocMed speak?) could be the X-factor..? Politicians have great trouble with this

Spin is to politics what PR is to business (and NGOs).

But shouldn’t that mean that perception of authenticity could work too?

Being seen to be transparent – giving the impression that you are grass roots. Astro-turfing. Are we just to media savvy to fall for that? Does a little bit of transparency mean that we can see through the ruse? What role will there be for PR impresarios and spin doctors in the world of transparency?

I have carried out one successful and high profile campaign that involved me making a concious decision to select a campaign spokesperson from the community of ‘victims’ that I helped bring together. I knew that having her as the front person would be better for the campaign rather than me – the actual founder. (It was also something to do with me not wanting to get dragged in the media circus and puffed up to be a saviour as well, but that’s besides the point – although that was perhaps my ‘golden ticket’ moment and I rejected it – that’s another reason I go under the name of ‘nommo’ rather than my full name).

I wonder if my authenticity and transparency was one of the reasons for the campaigns success as well as selecting someone that the majority of the campaigners would identify with?

Sorry – brain hurts now. Better get back to the day job…

TV talent shows, IMO, demonstrate a collective longing for society, for shared and common values, for people like me and you to have a better life, the best way we know how – that golden ticket. This also explains the success of the odd, very clever politician, look at Boris Jonson, loved because he is imperfect, because he babbles, and because he has constructed adversity out of a very very privilidged life – the facade of struggling against his own ineptitude.

I may be over-analysing this slightly, but I basically think it all boils down to an urge for a collective experience, and common ground. Parliamentary politics never had that, grass roots and unionism did. This is why I think we need to return to grass roots, albeit in a digital sphere, and also why I think it might be more effective than live grass roots alone – because it also has the potential to be amplified far and wide…

Why FFS? That is a very very good question. I have never voted for a TV show, but have signed a number of petitions on number 10 etc, I even started up my own campaign…

What is the ‘X-factor’ of campaigns? What is it that makes someone vote for someone on a TV talent show? Is it the same thing that makes people go out and vote in elections or participate in an online campaign?

Is online campaigning just lacking the glitz of the spectacle? Or is there something about believing in one’s ability to influence the outcome. Did the (fairly) recent TV vote phone-in scams affect the mentality of voters..? Have numbers dropped? Is there a ‘turn-out’ crisis for phone in votes like there is for elections?

Hmmmm…

People of our generation vote in droves for TV talent shows. I don’t think we should dismiss this – instant golden ticket success is what we’re told to value, and when we can see the direct result, understand the motivations behind the participants, we’re willing to participate. This isn’t apathy, just because it’s not directed in the way some people decide is ‘valuable’. It’s disenfranchisement, which is another problem altogether.

by-the-by I have very different experiences of student elections, they are the only elections I’ve never voted in because in all the unis I have been a part of they have been palsy, pathetic popularity contests, full of people who just want to get paid to live the student night-life for another year. And although the winners are never allowed to fail (they are looked after by proper staff) I have never seen a campaign promise worth a damn (more playboy nights at the union!) or one followed through that made a difference. That’s why no one voted in the ones I’ve seen.

And RE political/historical understanding, yes it is poor, but that’s all to do with the devaluing and monetising education (sounds like a contradiction, but I don’t think it is), transaction culture.

I think sometimes ‘politics’ (sweeeeeping generalisation) unwittingly revels in its ghetto-dom, I would definitely accuse Climate Camp of that. Likewise I would accuse the boys-club of parliament of the same. The point is they are not speaking the language of this generation yet, I don’t think that employment and tuition fees will prove any catalyst at all if there’s no viable battle ground, and if politics doesn’t start listening as well as telling.