Crossbows in 1415 bring an army to its knees before an outnumbered but merry few... Cannons in 1453 cause the collapse of a great empire... Communications intercepts in 1942 dispatch a modern armada to the bottom of the Pacific...
Agincourt, Constantinople, and Midway are reminders that in war, victory often goes to the side with better technology.
And so it is in politics.
Sure, the presence of a great cause or a skillful general often matters too. But technology often trumps. After all, the DCCC's foul-mouthed ballet dancer is undeniably a masterfully relentless tactician. So his underwhelming win-loss record ("Why did the DCCC lose, or is in the process of losing, eight of its top fifteen targets?") must owe itself to something other than incompetence.
Technology perhaps?
A serviceable technological architecture would include a front end that reaches out and touches individual voters and a back end that identifies and stays smart about those voters. Once upon a time, when all politics was in fact local, your local precinct captain knew you and therefore knew how to talk to you about elections. People were connected to politics. And they turned out to vote in large numbers.
No longer.
But technology offers the possibility of restoring the connection. Microtargeting at its best is about knowing voters individually and reaching out and touching them--engaging them--on their terms. Details once kept on myriad file cards by a local precinct captain now reside in databases. Karl Rove has been building electronic file cards on voters for a generation.
Democrats are reportedly committed to catching up. But competing technologists are also bickering over how to proceed. Hopefully the best technologists--as opposed to the best connected--will win.
How can you help? The next time you donate to a candidate or political party organization, ask questions. Where will the money go? Will it be invested in a technological architecture that will outlast any given election cycle? Is the process for choosing technology open or rigged? What is the long-term technology plan?
Getting answers may be hard. Perhaps it is time for a follow-on for MyDD's successful campaign scrutinizing media buys: we should also be monitoring technology investments. As important is it is to choose a media consultant with the skill of a Bill Hillsman, it is equally essential to monitor which technology providers get our money.
Who are the good guys--the Bill Hillsmans of technology? Here are my picks (with the disclaimer that I know or am friends with many of the individuals in these companies):
On the front end, check out Blue State Digital. These are many of the same people--including Joe Rospars, Clay Johnson, and Ben Self--who brought us record-breaking online fundraising and the Get Local tools for Dean for America. They continue to engineer some of the best web interfaces for campaigns.
On the software back end, Intelligent Integration Systems is providing the DNC's answer to Karl Rove. They are applying database technology that was used to crack the human genome to solve the voter ID challenge for the Democrats. Call it the Voter Genome Project (VGP).
Impressed with how well Amazon.com knows you? Well on the hardware back end, Netezza builds data warehouses for Amazon.com, the DNC, and others. Their technology makes it possible to analyze huge quantities of data--millions of files with hundreds of fields--in a instant. This kind of technology will be key to successful microtargeting.
Know other talented technology providers?
|
|
|
Permalink :: 5 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
