<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: Laughably inept
Review: How anyone can truly believe Dick Morris would have anything to say of value is beyond me. What a complete waste of money - thankfully I charged it to the taxpayers - just like my New York trips. The book read like a self-promotion for the website. His comments on how Alan Keyes won the first debate are very far off, it only means Keyes made sure his supporters voted.
Rating: 
Summary: Some technical underpinnings behind his concepts.
Review: I don't pretend to know how many of his predictions will come about, but his comments about web site development, traffic generation and cost are right on. If it is available, you can register a domain name of your choice(...). This gives you a worldwide platform from which to present your views. It has room enough to hold hundreds of pages of text and images that support whatever position you choose. If you are clever, funny, interesting, people will find it. Never in history has it been possible for an individual to make his/her thoughts so available for so little.He is also right about the established parties not getting it. Just for fun, take a tour of web sites. Try to connect to each states abbreviation + GOP and then .com .net .org For example, what is displayed at TXGOP.net. Lest you think I am bashing Republicans here, consider that there is no reason Democrats or others can't register such domains and use them as a platform in the "enemy camp". You will find that some are for sale, many are registered but not hosted, so they show "error 500 server errors", few understand the concept of reserving multiple domains and redirecting to your main site. Most have that "Corporate" = Boring feel to them. Only one was funny. There is clearly opportunity waiting for someone to exploit this. I found his insights very helpful in thinking about the possible application of these concepts in the real world.
Rating:
Summary: Some technical underpinnings behind his concepts.
Review: I don't pretend to know how many of his predictions will come about, but his comments about web site development, traffic generation and cost are right on. If it is available, you can register a domain name of your choice(...). This gives you a worldwide platform from which to present your views. It has room enough to hold hundreds of pages of text and images that support whatever position you choose. If you are clever, funny, interesting, people will find it. Never in history has it been possible for an individual to make his/her thoughts so available for so little. He is also right about the established parties not getting it. Just for fun, take a tour of web sites. Try to connect to each states abbreviation + GOP and then .com .net .org For example, what is displayed at TXGOP.net. Lest you think I am bashing Republicans here, consider that there is no reason Democrats or others can't register such domains and use them as a platform in the "enemy camp". You will find that some are for sale, many are registered but not hosted, so they show "error 500 server errors", few understand the concept of reserving multiple domains and redirecting to your main site. Most have that "Corporate" = Boring feel to them. Only one was funny. There is clearly opportunity waiting for someone to exploit this. I found his insights very helpful in thinking about the possible application of these concepts in the real world.
Rating:
Summary: It all sounds so plausible on paper
Review: In Vote.com Dick Morris would have us believe that our form of government will soon be transformed by direct access to information sources not beholden to big-money interests and their lobbyists, by direct participation of the public in voting on every issue of the day (opinion polls), and that the elected officials will be forced to listen. This sounds great unless one actually looks at the situation with one's own eyes. Unfortunately, like the internet, Vote.com is a mile wide and an inch deep. It is basically a long winded advertisement for Dick's website of the same name. If one troubles themselves to actually look at what Morris is talking about, his vision and reality scarcely meet. Most of the news information on the internet is controlled by those same corporate entities that control the print and broadcast media. If Morris is right, and Matt Drudge and his ilk are the answer, one is forced to wonder what the question is. An information system based on what any crackpot that can put together a website cares to say? Thanks, but no thanks. More damaging is to compare the Vote.com website results with polls conducted by Gallop and other established sources, or with the voting in the last election. The polls on the Vote.com website routinely reflect a very substantially more conservative pattern than the general population polls and actual election results do. All the Vote.com website has done is to quantify the demographics of the the people that frequent that site, as distinct from the general population. The results of the polls reflect the attitudes of a demographic that is more significantly more affluent than the mean, and more heavily caucasian as well. Yet another effort to exclude the have nots from the process? Lets see, first we were only getting rid of the big money and lobbyists, now it's anyone that isn't net capable? What other groups would Morris have us exclude from this new world order? One must keep in mind that he internet isn't free. There are many families in our great land to whom $20 per month, plus the computer to access it, would represent an insurmountable barrier. While not many would argue that the internet will have no effect on the political process, the fantasy that Dick Morris spins is certainly not supported by any evidence that is apparent. Is it simply too early yet, or does his hypothesis miss the proverbial broad side of the barn? Arguing that the population, most of whom would have a tough time identifying their congressional representatives in a lineup, will decide issues by direct vote is laughable, and if it were to come to pass would be truly frightening. In a country where it's tough to get 50% of the people to take 15 minutes of their time to vote on issues as fundamental regarding their well being as sanitary sewers, it seems a hard case to make that this same group of people with suddenly be motivated into paying attention, and embued with some superior wisdom that will make our current system of government suddenly obsolete. Our present system may not be perfect, but after reading Vote.com, and after observing the Vote.com website since it's inception, I am more thankful than ever for our present system.
Rating:
Summary: repetitive, repetitive fluffy ad for the vote.com website
Review: Morris' "Vote.com" is poorly written, poorly edited, and repetitious. If you have the patience to muddle through, however, there are insights to be gleaned. This would have made a good 28-page paper.
Rating:
Summary: ....
Review: the vote.com website is laughable, the opinions expressed there are the result of numerous right-wing extremist sites providing direct links to the voting polls- heavily skewing the results. This guy proposes that the world will be revolutionized by the internet. I don't doubt it. He claims that it has the potential to make america a democracy- (whereas before only very tiny countries could be true democracies) there I agree as well- if the path is followed very carefully. The book, however, is an adverisement for his website, and his website is totally worthless. As someone who likes the idea of using the internet as a vehicle for public opinion, he should REALLY consider taking a statistics class sometime. He would soon realize that his methods of sampling don't come close to representing american demographics, and his questions are sometimes quite leading. This would just be fun and games, except that politicians use polls like these to claim that president bush has a 90% approval rating or that the american public is disinterested in campain finance reform. Both are totally false. As an independent, I am quite frustrated by this site. Anyone with a hint of ethics- democrats and republicans alike- should voice their discontent at sites like this that add to the mindlessness of american politics- and push for one of 3 things: 1) big disclaimer that the opinions do not relfect those of the general population (for those with no statistics background that might otherwise be fooled into believing the opinions on this site)- and CERTANLY don't sent these warped opinions to the politicians!!!!! (they say that they do!) 2) change the polling procedure so people can only vote once, and such that the sample is drawn from as random a group as possible. -that means that they can't just let whoever feels like it arrive on their page and vote if they want it to reflect reality in any way, public opinion polls can be accurate with as few as 4000 votes if they have close to 100% response rate and they are sent to a random set of people (even a random set of people with email will be skewed, since more democrats don't have internet access (i.e. the old and/or the poor). 3) shut the site down. my favorite option, since I don't think the author is level- headed enough to follow path #2 : L
Rating:
Summary: ....
Review: the vote.com website is laughable, the opinions expressed there are the result of numerous right-wing extremist sites providing direct links to the voting polls- heavily skewing the results. This guy proposes that the world will be revolutionized by the internet. I don't doubt it. He claims that it has the potential to make america a democracy- (whereas before only very tiny countries could be true democracies) there I agree as well- if the path is followed very carefully. The book, however, is an adverisement for his website, and his website is totally worthless. As someone who likes the idea of using the internet as a vehicle for public opinion, he should REALLY consider taking a statistics class sometime. He would soon realize that his methods of sampling don't come close to representing american demographics, and his questions are sometimes quite leading. This would just be fun and games, except that politicians use polls like these to claim that president bush has a 90% approval rating or that the american public is disinterested in campain finance reform. Both are totally false. As an independent, I am quite frustrated by this site. Anyone with a hint of ethics- democrats and republicans alike- should voice their discontent at sites like this that add to the mindlessness of american politics- and push for one of 3 things: 1) big disclaimer that the opinions do not relfect those of the general population (for those with no statistics background that might otherwise be fooled into believing the opinions on this site)- and CERTANLY don't sent these warped opinions to the politicians!!!!! (they say that they do!) 2) change the polling procedure so people can only vote once, and such that the sample is drawn from as random a group as possible. -that means that they can't just let whoever feels like it arrive on their page and vote if they want it to reflect reality in any way, public opinion polls can be accurate with as few as 4000 votes if they have close to 100% response rate and they are sent to a random set of people (even a random set of people with email will be skewed, since more democrats don't have internet access (i.e. the old and/or the poor). 3) shut the site down. my favorite option, since I don't think the author is level- headed enough to follow path #2 : L
Rating:
Summary: Democracy According to Morris
Review: This is the worst book I have read in a long time. The book is extremely disjointed. Some chapters were simply added just to increase the size of the book. The book is a poor attempt by the author to advertise his web site Vote.com. I found few ideas to be interesting, however, they were just that, ideas that took up no more than few lines. Do not waist your money on this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Taking Triangulation to the Net
Review: Vote.com is ostentatiously a book about how the emergence of the Internet will change the political process. It seems that in referring to "Internet voting" Morris has conflated two ideas: informing and campaigning, and actual polling and voting. As to the former, it is undeniable that the Internet potentially has a major role to play in breaking the elite media stranglehold. Finally having uncensored access to right-wing viewpoints is, if you will, a breath of 'fresh air'.
The second point is a little stickier. Touting the power of Web polling sites (such as the one run by Morris himself, mentioned several times), it's not obvious why politicians should pay them particular attention compared to more traditional methods, particularly given that Web polls are notoriously unreliable, self-selecting, and open to abuse. As to actual voting on the Net, glossing over the serious inherent security and privacy issues, it's unclear why the act of voting for a presidential candidate through a Web site would do much to change politics-- except to lower the barrier to electoral participation. But if we don't even trust someone to make the effort to cast his ballot on Election Day, can we trust him to take the trouble to inform himself?
Morris argues that as the Internet has cut out the middleman from stock transactions and travel bookings it will do the same in politics. But it's unclear who this might be, if not our elected representative, and it's completely unfeasible to take him out of the loop. No citizen has the time or interest to engage himself on every possible issue. The whole point of representative democracy is that we place our trust in a proxy. While the Internet may enable us to register our opinions with our representatives, we already have this power through telephone and mail.
Morris does have interesting ideas on the application of the Internet to campaigning, such as the use of political banner ads, pseudo-interactive multimedia sessions with the candidates (along the lines of early-generation adventure games), or the 'Internet presidential debate'. Although banners will be less effective in modifying my own political beliefs since I disable them in my browser, I have to admit that there is something irresistible in the idea of Bush and Gore slugging it out in a chat room. He flatters us by saying that Internet campaigning will be better because we will reject 'negative' campaigning as less interesting. But it seems just a little optimistic to believe that the 'alienated Internet generation' will magically become engaged by all of this technology.
The book isn't too sharply focused, and ventures into unrelated forays that call on Morris' personal experience as a political campaign advisor. These include his thoughts on how Clinton shrunk the Presidency to fit the president, and on what he calls the 'unimpeachment'. The attempts to interpret every recent development in politics to a devolution of power from the mass media to the Internet seem a little strained. Without index or footnotes, this book seems somewhat cobbled together.
Morris may be right in that traditional campaigning will expand to include this new medium. But as to actual voting, lowering the presidential election to the level of voting on OJ's acquittal would do much damage to the solemnity of the occasion.
Rating:
Summary: Taking Triangulation to the Net
Review: Vote.com is ostentatiously a book about how the emergence of the Internet will change the political process. It seems that in referring to "Internet voting" Morris has conflated two ideas: informing and campaigning, and actual polling and voting. As to the former, it is undeniable that the Internet potentially has a major role to play in breaking the elite media stranglehold. Finally having uncensored access to right-wing viewpoints is, if you will, a breath of 'fresh air'.
The second point is a little stickier. Touting the power of Web polling sites (such as the one run by Morris himself, mentioned several times), it's not obvious why politicians should pay them particular attention compared to more traditional methods, particularly given that Web polls are notoriously unreliable, self-selecting, and open to abuse. As to actual voting on the Net, glossing over the serious inherent security and privacy issues, it's unclear why the act of voting for a presidential candidate through a Web site would do much to change politics-- except to lower the barrier to electoral participation. But if we don't even trust someone to make the effort to cast his ballot on Election Day, can we trust him to take the trouble to inform himself?
Morris argues that as the Internet has cut out the middleman from stock transactions and travel bookings it will do the same in politics. But it's unclear who this might be, if not our elected representative, and it's completely unfeasible to take him out of the loop. No citizen has the time or interest to engage himself on every possible issue. The whole point of representative democracy is that we place our trust in a proxy. While the Internet may enable us to register our opinions with our representatives, we already have this power through telephone and mail.
Morris does have interesting ideas on the application of the Internet to campaigning, such as the use of political banner ads, pseudo-interactive multimedia sessions with the candidates (along the lines of early-generation adventure games), or the 'Internet presidential debate'. Although banners will be less effective in modifying my own political beliefs since I disable them in my browser, I have to admit that there is something irresistible in the idea of Bush and Gore slugging it out in a chat room. He flatters us by saying that Internet campaigning will be better because we will reject 'negative' campaigning as less interesting. But it seems just a little optimistic to believe that the 'alienated Internet generation' will magically become engaged by all of this technology.
The book isn't too sharply focused, and ventures into unrelated forays that call on Morris' personal experience as a political campaign advisor. These include his thoughts on how Clinton shrunk the Presidency to fit the president, and on what he calls the 'unimpeachment'. The attempts to interpret every recent development in politics to a devolution of power from the mass media to the Internet seem a little strained. Without index or footnotes, this book seems somewhat cobbled together.
Morris may be right in that traditional campaigning will expand to include this new medium. But as to actual voting, lowering the presidential election to the level of voting on OJ's acquittal would do much damage to the solemnity of the occasion.
<< 1 >>
| 
