Inequality and Direct Democracy

One may assume that if we were all able to vote on ever issue the vast majority, with low incomes, would claim the wealth held by the rich for themselves. They would vote for a vast redistribution.
Switzerland is the pre-eminent example of a direct democracy and this graph (data from the UN) shows that the top 20% of wealthy Swiss have 5.7 times more assets than the poorest 20%. They are in the middle of the range of countries with far more inequality than Japan (3.4) and far less than Singapore (9.7).
For more on inequality I'd recommend this TED talk by Richard Wilkinson. He highlights the multiplicity of social benefits, for the poor and rich, evident in more equal societies.

Eroding Democracy

In "The Right Side Newsletter" Bengt Saelensminde wrote:

'Much of the Greek public see this [EU policy] as economic enslavement. They’re out on the streets fighting for their freedom.

Meanwhile the Greek police union released a statement saying its members refused to “stand against our parents, our brothers, our children or any citizen who protests”. The police union knows that more and more austerity is self-defeating. They agree with the protesters, not the politicians!

The union threatened to arrest members of the [EU reform] troika - for “blackmail, covertly abolishing or eroding democracy and national sovereignty”.'

Serious stuff, indeed! Perhaps all will change after the elections in April.

Development, Freedom and Rising Happiness

"Development, Freedom and Rising Happiness" is an academic paper by Inglehart, Foa, Peterson and Welzel, which identifies economic development, democratization and social liberalisation as three factors that produce an increase in sense of freedom, which is strongly correlated with a rise in subjective well-being, otherwise known as happiness. Previous reports about happiness in Switzerland also identified their system of direct democracy as contributing to well being, which seems to concur. But what if an enhanced democracy lead to a tyranny of the majority, thereby reducing social liberalisation to the detriment of happiness?
I consider that social liberalisation is a predominantly cultural factor, the opposite of traditional conservatism (with a small 'c'). The previous post identifies Britain as being more traditional than Switzerland, causing me to worry that if direct democracy is applied here, we run the risk of the majority forcing their mores on minority groups. A number of factors may counter this:-

1. Interactive Democracy presents the debating points prior to the voting part of the web site, boosting awareness of the issues and reducing dogmatic thinking.
2. The media increases awareness of the complexity of issues, encouraging people to doubt and change their intuitive views, enhancing liberalism.
3. When celebrities have diverse backgrounds and views, the population is likely to become more tolerant.
   
4. Education, multi-culturalism and foreign travel could help.
5. Enhanced awareness of human rights, already entrenched in law, and therefore becoming accepted as traditional, provide a stop-loss.
   
6. When traditional conservative leaders argue for the protection of minority interests that they don't themselves believe in, then it is unlikely that a tyranny of the majority will emerge.
7. Wide advocacy of equal opportunities and freedom of speech provide good foundations for direct democracy.
   

World Values Survey

According to the World Values Survey, 70% of values correlate with just the two dimensions shown in this chart, Traditional/Secular and Survival/Self Expression. (You can read the details here.)
The WVS may provide some insight into the cultural differences between nations with differing democratic or political systems. In particular, Switzerland, with its direct democracy, is shown to be more secular and more self expressive than Britain, but not massively so.
(According to Lars Tragardh, writing in The Guardian, Cameron has an interest in Sweden, which appears at the top right of this graph, high on self expression and secularism.)

Culture and Economics

Deirdre McCloskey argues that a revolution in living standards ultimately stemmed from a change in attitude towards commerce and the pursuit of wealth. “By the new pro-bourgeois talk, the positive-sum game was freed partly from zero-sum politics.”
Cultural barriers had kept innovation hemmed in. When these dissolved, ideas were finally free to proliferate. So the new culture made all the difference between ideas forming slowly and in isolation; or quickly, and together. In return, the merchants made Britain stunningly rich. The newly respectable middle class bought and sold and invented a new type of economy. They built machines and cities and they made Britain the centre of the world.
I advocate that, in a similar way, a change from representative to Interactive Democracy would free-up innovation in the political sphere.

(Quotes taken from this article on the MoneyWeek site).

Trip Advisor

There is obviously a cost to managing any operation and perhaps one of the arts of senior management is to put in place sufficient control systems without the costs becoming exorbitant. This concept applies to government as well as business. As Merryn Somerset Webb writes in this blog post (commenting on Tim Morgan's "Reform Trilogy"), undoing layers of administration from the NHS could save billions.

Over the last 50 or so years there have been serious improvements in quality management, from Deming's Total Quality Management to 6 Sigma, and the notion that improvements in quality can reduce costs by reducing defects is well founded. So care must be taken not to destroy essential management systems. But there is a concurrent idea, that customer experience is important and customers are the best people to judge it. In business, marketing departments have a host of techniques to measure customer experience. Each with their cost.

Trip Advisor offers a different way of doing this. It gets the customer to do the work of contributing to improving the system by offering an easy way for them to express their opinion. This could be applied to government services at relatively little cost.

Such a system may benefit from integration with Interactive Democracy because ID links your identification with your right to vote in an online system. It may be extended to identify you as a patient at an NHS facility at a certain time, indicating that your online opinion isn't mendacious, and giving you the right to express your opinion on-line.

Though the results of such a system may inform patient choice the more important benefit is that it will likely motivate staff to improve in all sorts of subtle ways.

Talent?

David Bolchover, in his book "Pay Check: Are Top Earners Really Worth It?", advocates the idea that the head's of organisations often benefit from the position of their firm and the economic environment much more than anything they contribute themselves. (According to Merryn Somerset Webb, from MoneyWeek, its worth a read.)

A political comparison would be PM Brown claiming to have beaten boom and bust only to be rudely awakened from his dream into an economic nightmare.

A sporting analogy also seems appropriate here. Isn't it obvious that some football players are more talented than others? Of course. But their earnings are also proportionate to the popularity of the game and the associated TV rights (enabling them to entertain many more people than any stadium can hold). There is also a far clearer idea of what constitutes soccer talent. Not so with business. An expert in one business may lack the technical understanding of another.

So, what's this got to do with democracy?

While I don't doubt that some people have a political talent, I doubt that that talent warrants their power over every aspect of society, and I doubt that we, the electorate, are easily able to spot it. Therefore, society should have mechanisms for talented individuals to come to the fore, as and when their expertise is needed. Interactive Democracy provides one way of doing this. For example, it encourages policemen to contribute to legislation on crime and doctors to campaign for healthcare. Yet it allows politicians to do politics.

Crony Capitalism

"Crony capitalism abounds when government leaders, usually in exchange for political support, routinely bestow favours on private individuals or business. This is not capitalism. It is called corruption."

Alan Greenspan, the Financial Times, quoted in MoneyWeek.

It could also be called crony democracy!

Interactive, or Direct Democracy is far less biased than Representative Democracy. Why? Because when the rich pay money to influence all votes, instead of a few representatives, it is automatically transparent.

Defining "In The Public Interest"

Journalists are an essential and powerful part of democracy. Do they use their power for good or ill? How free should they be? Should politicians be holding the press to account or should journalists be holding politicians to account? Hopefully the Leveson Inquiry will help to answer those questions.

To my mind it is valid that journalists sometimes bend the laws if the outcome is good for democracy. For example, the MP's expenses information were acquired illegally. Yet allowing press barons to use their powers to blackmail politicians is wrong. As is breaking the law in pursuit of tittle tattle, bribing the police or stalking celebrities.

Perhaps a legal definition of what is in the public interest would help clarify legal proceedings. If there were such a thing, in the future, when journalists are prosecuted for breaking the law they may pull out this as a "get out of jail for free" card and demonstrate that their actions were in the public interest. It would reinforce their freedoms yet define the limits of their remit.

So how would we define "in the public interest"?

Rooting out hypocrisy and lying by politicians should be part of it. Identifying those that abuse public office fits too. And, of course, crime. However, it does not include outing the private lives of celebrities.

To prevent the press from fishing for "dirt" using dubious means, there should also be a legal requirement that they have some evidence, however circumstantial, before they initiate an investigation. Without this a court may rule that their "get out of jail" card is invalid.

Shareholder Unions

It seems to me that individual shareholders will rarely exercise their voting powers because of the difficulties in attending AGMs. As proposed in the previous post, voting via the web, utilising Interactive Democracy, could be a solution. Another idea is to allow the creation of Shareholder Unions. Such a Union may have the perennial objective of limiting super-salaries with voting power commensurate with the number of shares held by all their members.

The practical problem with such an idea is How do you register voting rights when shareholders frequently trade their shares?

One solution is to make it mandatory that pension and Individual Savings Accounts providers integrate their share accounting with a central system able to apportion votes. This sounds much more complex, and expensive, than the one-person-one-vote Interactive Democracy system proposed here.

Another solution would be for pension and ISA providers to offer their commitment against super-salaries, perhaps utilising it as a unique selling proposition in order to stand above their competitors.

http://www.fairpensions.org.uk/filing-shareholder-resolution

Shareholder Democracy

It has been proposed that shareholders should have new powers to veto excessive pay for directors. Some advocate that there should be one-person-one-vote, others one-share-one-vote. The first limits the power of institutional investors, whose own directors may be a part of the super-salary merry-go-round; the second prevents activist share holders, who may buy only one share, from ham-stringing businesses in sectors such as defence, tobacco or pharmaceuticals.

In either scenario it would be feasible for the Interactive Democracy infrastructure to be used, improving the efficiency of shareholder democracy and empowering those shareholders who can't always attend an AGM.

The Iron Lady

I've been wondering for a while now, what aspects of culture foster direct democracy? If the Swiss can do it, why do some people think Brits can't?

One argument is that the Swiss are better educated. But they've been doing direct democracy for 150 years: back then no one was as well educated as the average person today, so we should be more than capable.

Perhaps it's their national service that binds them into a cohesive society? Or their multilingualism that breeds flexibility of thought?

Or perhaps it's our welfare culture that makes us expect to be looked after rather than look after ourselves? Or our aristocratic history that makes us look to an authority for answers?

Is it the political system that creates the culture or the culture that creates the political system?

"The Iron Lady" provides some historical perspective on our culture. In the film, the retired Margaret Thatcher makes two comments about how culture has changed. To paraphrase her, she says "People used to want to do something, now they want to be something"; and "People used to want to know what you thought, now they want to know how you feel". These sentences seem to me to capture some of our changing culture.

Interactive Democracy is more about doing than being. It empowers political activism. And it is more rational than emotional for the simple reason that to advocate your perspective, it's a good idea to explain it. But, on the other hand, people can vote using instinct if they wish.

Bertrand Russell - Plato's Utopia

In "History of Western Philosophy", Bertrand Russell, commenting on Plato's Republic, writes

"But in matters of government it is difficult to know who has the most skill, and very far from certain that a politician will use his skill in the public interest rather than in his own or in that of his class or party or creed."

This succinct appraisal is just as relevant today. Perhaps the main advantage of Parliamentary Democracy is in our ability to dismiss the government, thus exercising a power that tends to keep their interests focused on the public. Yet if the opposition are an unpalatable alternative, or form part of the same political class, much of this effect may be lost. Not so in Interactive Democracy which empowers the public to challenge each policy; and help create them.

ID runs contrary to Plato's ideal of the best politicians, and their descendants, wielding political power in perpetuity, and supplements Parliamentary Democracy's ideal of politicians wielding power until the next election. Instead it requires politicians to persuade us of the justice of their arguments, policy by policy. The best will win.

Swiss Democracy Going Digital

Electronic voting in the national referendum ballot March 2012

Bern, 16.12.2011 - On 16th December for twelve counties the Government approved the use of electronic voting in the ballot timed for 11th march 2012. About 122,000 voters will be able to vote by using the Internet. Already, all of these twelve counties have run tests of Internet voting.

The Government (Bundesrat)

EU Regulation on Citizens' Initiative

This regulation specifies the security structure of a web site for Citizens' Initiatives.

I think that such a system should allow citizens to change their vote in subsequent sessions yet this regulation demands that data should not be alterable. However, such a limitation can be worked around by having the facility for later dated votes to supersede earlier ones.

The ability to change your vote allows voters to cast a vote at a time which is convenient to them and then change it later if they change their mind. It will reduce the information load on the system as a ballot reaches its deadline, will likely increase voting numbers as it makes the system more convenient and facilitates an increasing amount of debate, closer to the deadline, to have the chance to change the outcome.

300 Million Minds....

Just come across this book, which sounds a lot like Interactive Democracy: "300 Million Minds Changing America Piece by Peace", by David Frank.

The Amazon Book Description reads "This book is about a plan to bring Americas 225 year old Republic system into the 21st Century. This new system for America is a result of a vision experienced by David Frank, in 1989. This vision outlined a new system for America using present day Communication Technology. By remapping America to look like a honeycomb, each community, looking like a hexagon, will use present day technology to allow the "people" to start fixing America from the ground-up. The new system will allow the "people," not the politicians, to begin to raise, debate and vote on issues that they believe can make their communities a better place to live. 1000 Technological Townhall Meeting systems across America will utilize the knowledge and brainpower of 300 million people, making the world a better place today, for the children of tomorrow."

Bankrupt Democracy

In a fascinating MoneyWeek article Tim Price wrote "A combination of western governments and those countries' banking sectors is effectively insolvent. The problem is one of democracy itself. The system sows the seeds of its own destruction when a critical mass of voters appreciates that it can vote itself privileges. Politicians who can rarely see further than the next election are happy to provide them. A state of entitlement then sets in, with the wealth-creating private sector crowded out and milked for taxes. In one sense government policy is predestined to fail because, as Mrs Thatcher observed, sooner or later the government runs out of your money."

This may be true for most western governments, but the same problems don't exist in Switzerland, which gives voters much more power. Surely, by Tim's analysis of cause and effect, Swiss voters, in their assumed selfishness, would have crashed their economy sooner. But it remains strong. Why? Because their system integrates everyone into a common society with shared responsibilities and, by being involved in politics, they educate themselves about the issues, the pros and cons, and come to balanced decisions. Interactive Democracy has every chance of doing the same.

("Eurozone governments are now too big to succeed" by Tim Price, MoneyWeek, 25/11/2011)

Diluted Voting Power

Here's a thought: the more voters there are for a given "Parliament" the less powerful each vote is.

According to the UK census of 1951 there were about 50 million citizens. By mid 2010 it was about 62 million. It's expected to reach 70 million by 2027. Assuming, for the sake of simplicity, that the proportion of the population eligible to vote remains the same, in 2010 your vote was worth about 20% less than in 1951 and by 2027 it will have lost another 9%. But, of course, the proportion of the total population who can vote will be much larger in the future, due to the aging population.

OK, this is a simplistic idea. But now consider the effect of giving powers to a federal European government. Now your vote is merely one in a little less than 500 million.

Our increasing powerlessness is the very opposite of the involved and empowered voters I argue for in this blog.

This post was inspired by Prof. Al Bartlett's lecture "Arithmetic, Population and Energy", available on YouTube. Here's the first part of the series:

The Chemistry of Trust

In this lecture, Professor Paul Zak explains the impact of oxytocin on trust and trust worthiness. He has many fascinating insights into the role of this hormone on people's behaviour and how to boost oxytocin levels. Could it be that giving people the right to vote regularly and a voice in the debates, boosts oxytocin among most people, increasing trustworthiness in society and perhaps adding to social cohesion and economic success??

Crazy Empowerment

In this article, Rhodri Marsden comments on the Government's plan to allow 100 000 on-line signatures to precipitate a Westminster discussion of the subject. In particular he thinks it's too easy: "Registering approval or disapproval of anything online requires a few imperceptible finger movements and almost no brain activity."
He also points out that the previous Government's ePetition system would only have promoted Westminster discussion of 8 petitions, and the premise of one of them was clearly wrong.
He goes on to write "Petition schemes make governments look like they're listening and the electorates think they're being listened to, but it's faux-democratic. Proposals hammered out on a keyboard are generally hare-brained and ill thought out, and politicians regard them with the contempt they deserve."
I partly agree with Rhodri, but I applaud the Government's proposals, yet think they don't go far enough. I think that promoting high quality debate is perhaps the most important role of Democracy and the involvement of Parliamentarians on a debating forum, integrated with a voting system, would help to calm Rhodri's misgivings.

Institutions v Collaboration

In this TED talk Clay Shirky highlights the differences between the institution and collaboration, and the way they get things done. In particular he compares the costs and values of each and points out that in a collaborative effort some people contribute a lot and others contribute a little. However, small contributions may make a significant difference. I would expect the same in Interactive Democracy: most of the contributions would come from those that are interested in politics with occasional valuable contributions from others.
Clay also describes how Institutions resist the loss of control that collaborative organisation brings. I would expect the same from Westminster.

Anonymous Agression

Randi Zuckerberg, Marketing Director of Facebook and sister to its founder, Mark, commented to Marie Claire magazine "I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away... I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors." This can result in all sorts of immoral behaviour including cyber bullying, harassment and lying.
On the other hand Richard Hall writes in The Independent "Privacy advocates have condemned plans to remove online anonymity, saying it could make it harder for dissidents in countries with poor human rights records to speak out."
Perhaps our society could benefit from parallel systems: Interactive Democracy would provide a regulated forum for debate, with sanctions against bad behaviour, but providing legal voting power; and commercial organisations could provide a more corruptible but freer network that would allow dissidents to have their say.
Another concern is the control that Facebook and the other web monopolies have over our society and culture, as Rebecca MacKinnon points out here.

The Hidden Influence of Social Networks

This video presented by Nicholas Christakis explores his studies into social networks. Although he mentions voter behaviour, the talk relates to many other areas, in particular the spread of obesity in society.
The power of influence within social networks could go a long way to explain the influence of one political party or another in certain areas of the country. It may also provide some insight into how new ideas, debates and opinions could flow through society. Worth a look as food for thought.

Lewd Leadership

The phone hacking scandal, a boil that has finally burst, runs the risk of missing a central point about how the media provides leadership for our country and our culture. In the case of News of the World, and several other newspapers, they realise that "sex sells" and celebrity sex sells more. So a good number of their stories "out" the private sexual exploits of the rich and famous, celebrities and politicians. They pander to base human instincts and debase our culture in the process: they provide lewd leadership.
Until now the political powers have been feeble in their response, despite the Human Rights Act, which states:

1. "the right to respect for private ... life"
2. "freedom from ... degrading treatment"
3. "the right to liberty"
4. "freedom of assembly and association"
5. "the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property" (including mobile phones?)
   
6. "the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms" (celebrities v general public)
   

To increase the quality of the leadership that the media provide I think it is essential that we curtail their power to exploit and manipulate, while strengthening the sector as a whole. After all, investigative journalists do some good stuff, but it is expensive to do and the investment may not produce a story.
One way of limiting lewd leadership would be to use the Human Rights Act, perhaps as a class action. Another is to limit media monopolies.
To strengthen print news (including electronic print) perhaps we should be considering some sort of financial support from our taxes: despite not paying VAT, some papers run at a loss. Perhaps we should also curtail the BBCs involvement in web-print and focus their attentions on iPlayer services instead, so that newspapers can better compete on the Web and Kindle.
(This post from January comments on phone hacking.)

Inspiring Democracy

"If you treat an individual as he is, he will remain how he is. But if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be and could be, he will become what he ought to be and could be."

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

People worry about the yobs that Interactive Democracy empowers; they worry about the dogmatic, the xenophobic, the narrow minded and the greedy. I think these are a small fraction of the population, insufficient to do any real harm. But Goethe highlights a different argument: that empowering people, involving them in the debate and making them responsible can make them better.
The idea is entertainingly captured in this video of Viktor Frankl, psychiatrist and holocaust survivor, who has seen the worst aspects of human nature yet retains his optimism.

http://www.ted.com/talks/viktor_frankl_youth_in_search_of_meaning.html