News-Record.com

Could Greensboro citizens have gotten potable water from Randleman Reservoir by now to serve us during this drought? Experts say no, but newly elected City Council member Trudy Wade campaigned that city incompetence is the reason we're not drawing Randleman water from our taps.

Allen Johnson dissects her campaign talk and matches it with facts and political reality.

Defeated incumbent Sandy Carmany wishes that Allen had written his column before last week's election. (Taft Wireback did write an article last month about why water wasn't coming from Randleman Reservoir.)

But imagine this unfolding another way, a way that portends the future:

On her blog, Trudy Wade posts her position on the use of Randleman water. Sandy responds with her own position. Allen Williams of the city water department explains the technical process of getting water from a clean lake into homes. Tom Phillips, the city's elected representative on the water authority, explains the political process on getting all the government bodies to agree on the use of the water. Arnold Koonce tells us about High Point's position. Others -- regular people like you and I -- read, ask questions, offer suggestions and learn from following the discussion of experts with information.

Allen's column did some of this, but it is restrained by the one-to-many delivery form which is delivered fresh once a day. Imagine this discussion done in real time in public.

We aren't there, of course. It would require more people to be online, more people with the direct knowledge to graduate from lurkers to contributors. And finally, either fewer trolls or participants with thick skins. (I first thought that it would require candidates who were seeking the best, correct solutions, but they are the least necessary. It is enough that citizens are informed. Presumably they would see through candidates who aren't acting in their best interests.)

Aside from the information citizens would get, but they also would be able to get to know the candidates in a way they couldn't in the newspaper or in television sound bites. You could see how candidates communicate, how they express themselves, whether they deal with the facts, and how open they are to other opinions.

Coincidentally, Dan Gillmor writes a column in the Boston Globe with a similar approach to political debates.

A debate that would unfold online over the course of days, or even weeks and months. Imagine that one candidate takes a position and poses a question. The opponent would answer with a written response of some predetermined length, but with the help of staff, experts, and the general public. Then the first candidate, again with the help of anyone who wants to join the process, would dissect the response and reply with (we'd hope) a truly nuanced update. Continue this process at length -- and repeat it with many other topics.

He recommends it be moderated, and he's probably right.

I doubt enough Greensboro citizens use online this way for this to take off yet. Greensboro public decisionmakers may not be ready for this yet. We certainly missed an opportunity during this municipal election season.

Still, there's nothing preventing us, the newspaper, from taking an issue, recruiting knowledgeable participants to actively contribute, and building an informed discussion that would help make good public policy.

What do you think? You must believe that this, or something like it, is the future. Let's get ahead of the curve.