Almost contemporaneously to the beginnings of the World Wide Web, pundits heralded a new Periclean Golden Age of e-democracy. They wrote about and designed software for online deliberation and the public exchange of reason that would transform our political culture.

Software might make it possible to "do deliberation" and overcome the problems complained of by 1950s sociologists, such as “groupthink” where like-minded people fail to consider alternatives or debate proposals sufficiently or "cascading" where members of the community acquiesce in the opinions propounded by the loudest speakers. But, with software, we could control who speaks when and induce everyone to participate, rather than only those who are willing to speak up face-to-face. Designed right, new technology could inculcate such ideals as open discourse, equal participation, reasoned discussion and diverse viewpoints into the practices of on-line deliberation. This would make it possible not only to talk but also to truly deliberate at a distance. The new era of cyber-democracy was just around the corner, right?

It didn’t happen.

We will discuss why, despite the deliberative potential of new technologies, current political institutions have changed little in response to Web 2.0. We will explore the role of visual and social interfaces in producing better democracy and talk about the progress of the Peer-to-Patent project, the first example of opening up federal government decision-making to a self-selected network of scientific experts. This talk will focus on how both law and technology might be better deployed together to bring about not only deliberation but collective action and a new kind of collaborative democracy that connects institutions to networks.