As it stands, this country is about to (re)discover the power of long tail voting.

Not since the 60s has the United States seen this kind of voter turnout. Individuals previously ignorant to the democratic process are expected to come out and vote in what clearly is a historic election.

We, members of the digital technology and media industry, have used the long tail idea gladly and often, at least since Chris Anderson’s highly recognized Wired magazine article about “the few that dominate”.

We have since flocked to the long tail concept to describe how the aggregate number of individuals previously ignored by commercial systems can populate and popularize anything from micro blogs to amateur-produced snack-size videos, or en-gross selling of long forgotten books on amazon.com.

The same “saftey in numbers” phenomenon may now be just what it took to change the direction of an entire country.

While the latter remains a promise until proven, no matter who you vote for tomorrow morning, the former is happening as we speak.

Already a record number of those previously discouraged or put off by politics have returned from their voting duties; young, first-time voters, african-americans, hispanics, immigrants, all joined by millions of others in a common believe that its worth standing in line for hours on end, convinced that the time and cause is right.

Of course our industry’s arsenal of lingo would be incomplete if we couldn’t add to the long tail moniker all sorts of related terms.

Think discovery, collaboration, and sharing. Add hyper-targeting and monetization to understand how much the past 21 months of presidential campaigning have benefited from their first dabble with Web 2.0.

Not to mention the unprecedented number of supporting broadband connections that helped to fuel the national debate.

Still, it is not entirely clear whether any side has gained on the other in its particular ability to leverage the long-tail power of the Internet.

It just might simply be a zero-sum game.

But hey. Who’s counting?

For now, let’s go and vote!

PS: For those of you eager to combine your long tail capabilities until the very last second of the democratic process, go to Current TV and fire up your Twitter and your Digg account.

PS II: To be sure, while both campaigns leveraged the long tail power of the Internet, they also knew that a linear TV feed was still a medium key enough to agree to last minute Saturday Night Live appearances or to buy millions of dollars worth of traditional broadcasting airtime to get the message out. Shelly Palmer’s recent post makes several salient points on the deliberate old-school-ness of those decisions. Be sure to check it out.

During a Digital Hollywood panel concerned with the future of the television as an internet video delivery device, one panelist rather glibly declared the problem already easily solved - via only a $10 DVI/VGA-HDMI cable.  Since another one of my other pet peeves is the tendency of us technical folks to disconnect entirely over the value of simplicity , I have to take my hat off to panelist JD Colaco of Hulu, who correctly pointed out that such a solution was beyond “95%” of the general population (I would further add that it would also still require the viewer to boot up the computer and administer everything from there – not the most elegant solution).

But perhaps JD’s point was best made only minutes later, as another panelist’s ‘brave new world’ powerpoint presentation was delayed for several minutes, as (and this is in a roomful of digital media professionals and with hotel A/V support on hand) there was a problem with his laptop and the flat screen:

…connecting the DVI/VGA -HDMI cable.

When talk turns to video distribution over the internet, I’m always amazed that the issue of physically bridging that last yard or two from the home internet connection behind the computer to the television in front of the coffee table isn’t discussed more.

At last week’s Digital Hollywood show in LA, the majority of panels were about how to better monetize the video currently being streamed to the web browser (understandable, given the current economic climate).  The basic problem is that while the CPM rates that web video publishers can charge advertisers run several times higher than what traditional broadcasters can get away with charging, online viewers will tolerate only a small fraction of the amount of advertising that traditional broadcast and cable television viewers will put up with (imagine how well a traditional two minute commercial break would work on Hulu…).

To me, the issue is fairly clear –

• Only longer-form programming (lasting a half-hour or more) will support higher advertising density and attract more mainstream brands.
• Ales’ Theorem: The willingness of the viewer to sit alone at a desk or in front of a laptop is inversely proportional to the length of the programming.
• Therefore, a truly sustainable internet video business model relies on solving the physical problem of getting that content onto the television.

In other words, to paraphrase Gil Scott Heron: The Revolution Will Be Televised

…look for some big announcements at CES in January.