There are two nets - divided only by the Atlantic. And never has that ocean seemed as wide as during the party conference season, ending with the Tories in Bournemouth this week.

Firstly, there was the net of legend. A forum for democratic Athenian debate, where information would be widely available to everyone. In secretive countries such as Britain, it would herald a new age of glasnost. Information would really be free and government would not be able to hide from unflattering stories.

Then, there's the net of fact: difficult to work your way around, confusing and bamboozling - in the same manner that the Sir Humphrey Applebys of this world pile official documents onto the desks of ministers.

At first glance, Britain is overrun with online political coverage. There's sites such as YouGov (www.yougov.com) and at the Labour party conference last week, delegates roamed the halls wearing the neck lanyards of conference sponsors ePolitix (www.epolitix.com) which describes itself grandly as "Britain's leading political and parliamentary website" and is run by the publishers of the House Magazine. Seasoned correspondent Robin Oakley, the former BBC political editor now at CNN.com's European operation, could be seen at work - and both ourselves and BBC Online had a presence.

But while these sites are, well, great, there's something missing. If you really want to be inspired by the way online journalism covers politics, you have to point your mouse to the US. There, democracy online really does have a meaning.

The first thing I have to say is that we have an interest ourselves - Guardian Unlimited is presently planning its own political site. But all UK political sites have lessons to learn from the US.

It's not just because technology is bound up with US politics now (Microsoft has spent more than $15m lobbying and contributing to the Republican and Democrats since 1997, according to a report from US campaigning group Common Cause published last week). It's also that the web has been turned into a well-oiled machine for covering big and little politics in a way users can understand and relate to.

While the next election will be Britain's first e-election, with online reporters competing for user share as hard as their print counterparts, the election for US president in November will be the first where the net may actually influence the result.

For the candidates, the net is an essential marketing and fundraising tool. Millions of dollars have been raised online for them, and the US TV networks compete wildly for online coverage of the party conventions.

What's striking besides the sheer amount of space devoted to politics is that there's a voice and attitude to US political websites. By and large - and bizarrely, considering the combative nature of British papers - UK online political coverage tends towards the respectful. In the US, if a site is not taking the mickey out of a candidate it is pressing hard for answers to difficult questions.

Subverting the po-faced official sites, well-designed spoof sites have become the bane of high-profile politicians - to the extent that the Bush campaign tried to buy up unflattering site addresses to reduce the options for opponents. He had good reason: one of the strongest spoof sites in the US is www.gwbush.com, which has twisted rap star Eminem's The Real Slim Shady into a game where the Republican vice-presidential nomination jives to The Real Dick Cheney.

The candidates themselves are not averse to getting down and dirty online. The Republicans have set up Gorewillsayanything.com, a comprehensive list of negative attacks on the vice-president. The Republican National Committee produces the Goreinventionconvention.com and Gorepollution.com sites, which are pretty self-explanatory. The Democrats have hit back with similarly aggressive sites such as IknowwhatyoudidinTexas.com and MillionairesforBush.com. The sites are considered significant enough by the parties for them to accuse each other bitterly of online negative campaigning.

And while the big UK parties' sites have improved massively in the last year (the Labour party relaunched its site last week with live webcasts from the conference and full speeches), it's hard to imagine them displaying the flair and imagination - and cash - of their US counterparts. Some would say it's just a reflection of the difference in political culture. In the US, citizens demand access to information from their servants. In the UK, subjects accept what they are given and expect information to be handed to them.

That is a view reflected by much of Britain's online political coverage. But I don't believe that. It's just up to the web to prove them wrong.

&149; Simon Rogers is deputy editor of Guardian Unlimited