Technology has lowered the threshold for decision-making for the average citizen while raising the level of input that citizens have at various governmental institutions. For example, of course, the manufacture of weapons of war has been the subject of intense moral debate, but the process itself has by no means been the only area that has seen the rise of citizen input. The creation of the internet, for example, has facilitated participation in democratic processes, allowing people throughout the world to interact with each other and with the government. Additionally, the widespread availability of public records means that people no longer have to live in fear of reprisal by their government if they use information that may be embarrassing to public officials. Therefore, any government that relies only on its citizens’ votes is likely to encounter problems due to increased citizen input.

By allowing citizens to influence the decisions of government, technology has helped to increase accountability and transparency. For example, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was enacted in the US in 1966, after President Lyndon Johnson was criticized for keeping tabs on private citizens. The FOIA allows any person or group to request records of government activity, and the agencies that receive these requests have 20 working days to produce the requested documents. Additionally, many municipalities have been established whose purpose is to review public records and hold them subject to public scrutiny. The disclosure and scrutiny of government documents have aided in reducing corruption, as government entities are less likely than ever to try to hide wrongdoing from the public. This aspect is particularly true of governmental programs, such as welfare, in which money is often distributed based on an individual’s position rather than need.

Since the advent of the internet, it has become easier and more accessible for citizens to communicate with their governments. For instance, in 2003, YouTube was created, providing a forum for people from worldwide to voice their opinions. In addition, the widespread availability of social media and other Internet platforms has allowed citizens to interact with each other and disseminate information regarding government activities. The internet also facilitates citizen input by providing a platform for people to participate in political activism. For example, the Tea Party movement in the US, which emerged in 2009, mobilized ordinary citizens in opposition to the policies of the Obama administration. As a result, Obama lost several congressional seats in the 2010 Congressional election.

Many governments, however, have reacted negatively to increased citizen input. For instance, in 2001, the German government passed a “digital gag law” that prohibited internet use by newspapers, citizens, and politicians to criticize the German government. Despite protests by the international community, this measure remained in effect until 2011. Similarly, in 2010, the ruling Chinese Communist Party passed a “cyberspace sovereignty” law, which involved banning foreign websites and search engines. This law was a response to efforts by citizens, particularly students, to freely use the internet for political ends. Even the US, which prides itself on being a land of free political expression, has enacted laws that limit citizen input. For example, in 2006, Congress passed the Protect IP Act, which encourages American companies to censor foreign websites deemed to infringe upon American intellectual property. These laws may harm efficiency and economic health, as citizens have fewer avenues to voice their concerns. For example, many companies in the US are hesitant to share information regarding proposed government policies with employees who may be unhappy with the plans. If the government were to rely only on the vote of its citizens, citizens would be less likely to have this information and less able to lobby for changes to government plans.

In sum, technology has made it possible for citizens to become more involved in their governments. However, this increased involvement may cause problems, such as increased corruption and decreased efficiency, for the entities that rely only on citizens’ votes.