Transparency & CT Government

Look to Data.gov (0.00 / 0)

And more specifically, their use of semantics:

http://www.data.gov/semantic/i...

It turns out that when you publish all that data in a self-describing format (which is much easier than it used to be), some really interesting things can be done with it by people with only a little training.

---

by: Demosthenes @ Wed Jun 30, 2010 at 18:46:13 PM UTC

Voting data (0.00 / 0)

For instance:

The totals for each race and question for each district, further broken down by absentee, election day, and provisional, by optical scan and hand counted, along with images of optical scanner tapes, including ballot counts. Also in a form downloadable to Excell.
- Then audits could be compared to data published before the audit.
- Citizens, candidates, and parties could compare the totals to the details to assure they are correct.

Post-election audit reports from the towns, also downloadable.

Dates and times of post election audits, and pre-election testing. (Since the source of this is the Registrars, they could use the same network and passwords as the voter registration system to input the data).


because Connecticut voters count: http://www.CTVotersCount.org

---

by: BlastFromGlast @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 00:40:38 AM UTC

Seeing through transparency... (0.00 / 0)

"Transparency" -- already almost a cliche! -- is all about:

1) Not making REAL changes, like actually regulating something, but wimping out by -

2) Pretending to (instead) make "important" information available to the public -- while, of course, making sure to super-hide the REALLY important stuff first, so that -

3) When the sh*t hits the fan (and we know it always DOES!), there's a super-ready-made excuse: "Don't blame ME - I was TRANSPARENT about it!"

Sad, lame, trendy... {trend over yet???}

---

by: James D @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 03:29:36 AM UTC

An interesting point (4.00 / 1)

Hi James,

1. I do agree a lot of times transparency is a bit of a wimp out on tackling certain issues, but at the same time I don't think that negates the value of the transparency. That value is that engaged citizens like ourselves have the ability to see the data and information that policy makers are using and then provide our own input or use it to modify our own behaviors.

2. I think that assessment is rather subjective and highly context specific. Though the point of this post was to ask people: what kind of data is important? Sometimes there is stuff that can be transparent but we can't do anything about, other things we can do stuff about. Sometimes its as simple as being armed with the tools to effectively articulate and convince some legislators of our position.

3. I don't think transparency is an excuse for "screwing up" but merely provides us with a lens to see why people screwed up. If no one looks then there might not be alternate perspectives for the policy makers to consider, and if they do screw-up then people will know what our leaders shouldn't be doing in the future.

Ultimately transparency is only what we make of it as a citizenry. If we remain disengaged, then its most certainly useless.  

Blog | Twitter

---

by: Matt Zagaja @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 14:32:15 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Hmmmm.... (0.00 / 0)

I agree that an informed citizenry is invaluable.

But in many (most?) cases, much of what is made "transparent" is like all the zillions of bits of info on the Web: facts, numbers -- but not knowledge.  I don't think democracy is about each voter spending hours online sifting through mostly crap.  

And the REAL "knowledge" -- the behind-the-scenes deals, the after-the-fact payoffs,etc., will always be opaque.

In a flash, I'd trade all this "transparency" for a few smart, experienced, committed investigative reporters with the time and resources to dig deep and make sense of the wheels and deals of politics/government.  They have the knowledge and the training.  (I will become engaged and enraged by reading them).

In comparison, most of the rest of us are just jagging on faux-empowerment.

---

by: James D @ Thu Jul 01, 2010 at 19:13:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]