Tuesday, 19 August 2014

"Democracy's not all it's cracked up to be..."

"Democracy's not all it's cracked up to be you know" is the title of  Tim Worstall's Adam Smith's Institute post, here.
He makes the point that "anti"-homosexual Section 28 legislation matched the majority view, as discovered by opinion polls of the time. Would things have been worse for gay rights under Interactive Democracy?
Who knows? A lot of the outcome depends on the quality of the debate as much as the current zeitgeist or deeper culture. But Interactive Democracy provides a channel for that debate which would be utilised by those that feel strongly on the issue, allowing them to "educate" the rest of us, perhaps changing our views entirely. In contrast, representative democracy provides a closed debate, disengaged from the populace and conducted predominantly by aged males with their inevitable biases and group think. Down trodden minorities are rarely given voice. Furthermore, the rest of us are encouraged to have faith in Parliament's wisdom, discouraging us from thinking for ourselves.

Wednesday, 6 August 2014

Politics: The Art of Best Compromise

Politics could be seen as trying to satisfy as many people as possible by constructing the best compromise. The government that achieves this, assuages fears and provides hope, has the greatest chance of winning the next election. They know that causing a little pain for some voters can be soothed by other beneficent policies and balanced by the approbation of other groups. Pain at the beginning of a parliament fades over time if the opposition don't rub and needle. It's a messy business. More art than science.
Direct Democracy is different. Each referenda is decided to benefit the majority. But it can also incorporate compromise if the best policy is designed through debate before being sanctioned by the electorate. Interactive Democracy allows voters with a wide range of experiences to be involved in the development of policy, perhaps creating solutions that politicians may not have considered, but at the same time being guided by their expertise. Such a system may provide even better compromises, empowering and educating the electorate, too. It is transparent instead of opaque; immediate not cyclical; accurate not doubtful; incorruptible not dubious; democratic not for sale; technological not archaic... More scientific.

Wednesday, 23 July 2014


A thought for the day: disempowerment leads to violence.
Political protests can become riots. One vote per household in Northern Ireland perpetuated the Troubles by disempowering Catholics in large households. Substantial minorities in Northern Spain and Sri Lanka resorted to terrorism. Western Ukrainians fight separatists in the East. In short, and to simplify, the disempowered try to seize power through force of arms, threats and violence.
What's the solution?
One person one vote. Referenda rather than rule by an elected elite. A culture of tolerance and respect for minorities and/or culturally homogeneous political regions with local government. Wide adoption of the golden rule.
Alternatively, wide economic success means less political angst and is also a route to peace.
Interactive Democracy is the epitome of empowerment, but Representative Democracy can be counter productive, centralising power amongst a political elite and disempowering the majority. This is what we have seen in Ukraine, when the West insisted on national general elections despite the Eastern regions wanting a referendum on independence. Much death and suffering could have been avoided.

Friday, 4 July 2014

Gagging Law

The Lobbying Act has been dubbed the gagging law by some people as it restricts "the ability of third parties to campaign in election periods" according to The Guardian, here. It reports that Labour are reviewing how big money affects politics and that they have pledged to repeal the Act.
It is my view that the problem isn't one of big money per se, but that money should only be spent on politics in a fully transparent way and that all campaigns should be rooted in evidential truth. Unfortunately, in Britain today, political advertising isn't covered by the Advertising Standards Authority and there are no sanctions against baseless political claims. I don't see the problem if big money were used to research facts and promote them, as Joseph Rowntree did at the beginning of the 20th century, but cash for questions or secret funding of politics is a deplorable corruption of democracy. Instead of a gagging law I want to see a law against lying in politics.

Wednesday, 11 June 2014

Secret Ballots and Cryptocurrency

A good voting system should be free from intimidation, be accurate and assured. Originally I envisioned that an Interactive Democracy account would work a bit like an online bank account: you would "pay" your vote and receive a digital receipt in return, listed on your statement. The electoral board would be the central controlling authority, a bit like a bank. All of this is possible but fallible: the electoral board could massage the figures; or voters could be intimidated into providing access to their accounts. Cryptocurrencies provide an alternative solution, explained in this Telegraph article by Matthew Sparkes.
A cryptocurrency such as bitcoin has a finite number of coins that is predetermined. Transactions using these coins aren't listed on a bank's ledger but exist on numerous decentralised computers using a blockchain system. If votes were counted as cryptocoins there would be no way for central authorities to miscount or manipulate the results without being discovered.
Another feature of cryptocurrencies is that they are anonymous. This means that voters could use their cryptovotes without fear of punishment for how they voted. In short it would be a secret ballot.
Contrary to my original notion of Interactive Democracy including something akin to a bank statement, listing transactions, the cryptovote system wouldn't need it. Instead transactions would be assured through the blockchain. The total number of votes cast would also match the total number of cryptovotes in existance - those not cast by the electorate would be "spent" by their representative.
As more youngsters come of age to vote and older ones die, more cryptovotes would need to be created and defunct accounts destroyed. The best way to do this would be to create new cryptovotes for each referendum, also ensuring that cryptovotes couldn't be amassed and "spent" on a single issue.
While there is some cost to the electricity used in creating and distributing each cryptovote, I expect this to be small in comparison with normal voting procedures. It could be funded via central government taxation. This is in contrast to the creation of bitcoins which are "mined" by numerous private computers for a small fee, paid in bitcoins and sufficient to cover the energy costs (at least initially). This aspect, and the issuing of cryptovotes to elligible voters, remains centralised, but operates on decentralised servers, immune to accident or attack. (Alternatively, I wonder if it is possible for each voter to mine their own cryptovote?) If you don't receive the cryptovotes you are entitled to, you should complain.
Of course, if you allow others access to your voting account (similar to a bitcoin wallet) they may spend your cryptovotes for you. The spending or stealing of someone's cryptovote would be a criminal offense, as would coercing someone to vote against their wishes. Today, similar problems exist with postal voting.
I like the idea that you can spend your vote well before the deadline and then change your mind as the debate develops. This is both convenient and accommodating. Cryptovotes could allow this by only releasing the transaction at the deadline even though the vote was earmarked (or cast) earlier.
My preference is that unspent cryptovotes would accrue to your Member of Parliament but it would be possible to give them to others as you see fit, allowing them to vote on your behalf. But such a system may be far less palatable for MPs. This is called Liquid Democracy.

Tuesday, 10 June 2014

Working the Political System

"In areas ranging from local zoning laws to intellectual property protection, from financial regulation to energy subsidies, public policy now bestows great fortunes on those whose primary skill is working the political system rather than producing great products and services."

Interactive Democracy may help with this problem, too, by making political access easy, ensuring that everyone can vote freely on every issue and by enhancing transparency. It won't eliminate the advantages of the rich, which Mr Summers writes about in his article, but it is a large step towards political equality.

Tuesday, 20 May 2014

Oligarchs and Poligarchs

MoneyWeek publisher Bill Bonner introduces the concept of "poligarchs".  He explains it in The Daily Reckoning (20/5/14) and how American democracy relates to markets:

"Government’s primary concern is not to protect its citizens or their economy. Instead, it aims to transfer more power, status, and wealth to the elite who control it (the oligarchs). And to do that, it must keep the masses (the poligarchs) sedated. Charles Hugh Smith explains it:

“The State has two core mandates: enforce quasi-monopolies and cartels for private capital, and satisfy enough of the citizenry's demands for more benefits to maintain social stability.

“If the State fails to maintain monopolistic cartels, profit margins plummet and capital is unable to maintain its spending on investment and labour. Simply put, the economy tanks as profits, investment and growth all stagnate.

“If the State fails to satisfy enough of the citizenry's demands, it risks social instability.”"

In my view direct democracy breaks this deceitful relationship. It takes power from the elite and gives it to the masses, who can vote on anything (e.g. the Swiss just voted against spending billions on the Gripen jet fighter and on a new minimum wage - BusinessWeek).

But why would the masses demand more power when they are satisfied with life?

They wouldn't. But I'm sure that large portions of them want their say on matters they feel strongly about. Matters that are often ethical rather than economic. This creates a political opportunity for a direct democracy party to change the status quo and create a more prosperous and equitable democracy.

Tuesday, 29 April 2014

State Capture

Mr Piketty "believes that when wealth is concentrated in a few hands there follows a phenomenon he calls “state capture.” Rich people are able to get control of the government and use it like a Mafioso with a baseball bat: to whack their challengers and skim the profits.

But the state is no chaste and innocent participant. It is not “captured” at all. Instead, those with control of the police and the military are no strangers to the baseball bat; they use it regularly. In fact, they often take the rich hostage and demand as much ransom (taxes… bribes… campaign contributions… payoffs to special interests) as they can get from them. More often, they simply connive and conspire with any group that can help them – rich and poor, labour unions, business groups, lobbyists and so forth – always subverting capitalism and undermining the public welfare."

My view is that if everyone could vote on every issue there would be less opportunity for democracy to be captured by anyone. Interactive Democracy could be a free market of ideas, paid for in the currency of votes, an expression of the demand of the majority.

Bill continues with his theme on 1/5/14:

"The "market economy if left to itself, contains powerful forces of convergence in the distribution of wealth", he [Piketty] explains. But "it also contains powerful forces of divergence, which are potentially threatening to democratic societies and to the values of social justice on which they are based.”

Once again, he misunderstands the modern, democratic state. It is not based on real social justice. It is based on fraud. The masses are told that they control the government. And while they are earnestly reading the newspapers, arguing about Obamacare and voting, the elites profit from bailouts, zero-interest rate policies, subsidies, tariffs, sweetheart loans – you name it. That is how the rich got so rich... with the eager connivance of the authorities.

And now he concludes that the forces of ‘divergence’ – of wealth – are likely to be much more powerful in the 21st century and that someone needs to do something about it. Who? The same authorities who distracted the public while the elites picked their pockets."

Tuesday, 22 April 2014


Is UKIP's claim that "75% of our laws are now made in Brussels" accurate and true?

The independent House of Commons library found that "just 9 per cent of statutory instruments passed in the UK Parliament between 1998-2005 were implementing European legislation" according to Channel 4's Fact Check service.

"UKIP told FactCheck that it took the 84 per cent figure drawn from this research, and adjusted it down to 75 per cent for the UK in light of the fact Britain did not join the single currency.
The party said the downward adjustment of 9 per cent was not based on any empirical research, but an estimate assisted by “senior political experience” within its ranks."

The truth of the matter is muddied by confusion over regulations and/or directives being included in the numbers. "Confused? FactCheck thinks you should be." But they conclude that "Clearly this is a complex issue, and difficult to prove, but there is a lack of evidence to suggest 75 per cent, or even half, of the UK’s laws now come from Brussels."

So, should UKIP be allowed to print it?

I think that misinformation damages democracy and suggest that there should be laws against lying in public life. A system of deterrents could be enforced through a system akin to the Advertising Standards Authority.

Such a system wouldn't rule out something like "We estimate that 75% of our laws are made in Brussels."

Saturday, 5 April 2014

Clegg v Farage

MoneyWeek (4 April 2014) commented on the Clegg v Farage debate:
'Debates like this could usefully be held on subjects from immigration to foreign policy. How depressing then that the "mood music suggests" there will be no repeat of the TV debates of the 2010 election in 2015. They are just what Britain needs to "exorcise the spirit of apathy".' (Quoting The Times, I think.)
A useful report on this EU debate can be found here, including some fact checking and reports on the media's take on it.
While I applaud the debate I find the personal attacks and dubious facts annoying. A written debate on the proposed Interactive Democracy web site would list positive, negative and interesting points for each proposal, steering politics away from personalities and character assassinations. I also propose sanctions against lying in public life, administered along the lines of the Advertising Standards Authority. Nonetheless, public debates such as this one on Europe could enhance Interactive Democracy.

Sunday, 23 March 2014

Culture - The Ultimate Group Think

In "Cultures and Organisations: Software of the Mind" Professor Geert Hofstede published his research into the differences and similarities between more than 70 countries. The research has been updated since the original publication in 1990 and you can compare countries using Hofstede's website, click here.
Using the site you can compare countries. For example Russia is significantly different to Britain in its acceptance of Power differences between people, suggesting tall hierarchies; and uncertainty avoidance, suggesting a need for politicians to do what they say they are going to do. This may provide some perspective on the Crimean situation. While our own parliament does its own groupthinking in terms of policy, as I described in my last post, it may also be automatically blind to cultural differences (as we all tend to be).
As Switzerland is probably the preeminent example of direct democracy it is also interesting to compare their culture with our own. Click here for Switzerland's cultural fingerprint. You will see that the UK culture values individualism much more than the Swiss who have a noticeably stronger preference for uncertainty avoidance. Otherwise they are similar. Perhaps it is the Power Distance measure that has the most impact on the acceptability of direct democracy (click here for the PD definition). On this measure Switzerland and the UK are almost identical (1% difference).

Wednesday, 19 March 2014

Groupthink / Groupspeak

It was an hour into the House of Commons debate on Ukraine when a conservative backbencher noted that a majority of Crimeans probably want to be a part of Russia, whether the recent referendum was a shoddy affair or not. Otherwise the Members of parliament spoke with a common voice, vilifying Russian "aggression". It wasn't so much a debate as a signal to the Russian authorities who may have been watching and a statement of British will. Groupspeak, for want of a better word.
Or was it an example of groupthink, "when a group makes faulty decisions because group pressures lead to a deterioration of “mental efficiency, reality testing, and moral judgment”.
Perhaps the government has taken a more analytical approach behind closed doors, carefully considering all arguments and developing a strategy to play this international game of geopolitical power. Then spinning a line in public discourse in order to influence Russian behaviour.
Interactive Democracy may undermine these games of brinkmanship, because the debate would be more open. For example, using the ID system someone may point out that European money supported opposition in Ukraine leading to revolution; that Crimea has its own Parliament that voted to have the referendum; that Ukraine does not yet have a government approved via a general election; that the Ukrainian interim government planned to outlaw the Russian language, precipitating fears among Russian speakers; that the international community haven't advocated the right for self determination of Crimeans despite using this argument in other situations, such as the Falkland Islands; that troops on Crimean streets has not had a violent effect and may have actually calmed the situation; that there is no evidence of voter intimidation by troops; or that Crimea is geographically distinct from mainland Ukraine. (All stated as counterpoints to the much publicised arguments on the other side; facts not checked.) Others may state a desired objective, such as to promote democratic self determination and political transparency; or to reinforce democracy in other "threatened" states. And some may make predictions - that Russia won't relinquish its grip on Crimea in any event, for fear of looking weak.
Personally, I'd rather have an open, honest, probing and democratic debate than let politicians play geopolitical games. And I'd advocate the same for other countries, too.

Tuesday, 18 March 2014

Tablets Drive Deeper News Consumption

According to this report by Starcom MediaVest and the BBC, tablet users "consume" more news across more topics. This means that mobile internet is helping educate people about current affairs, supporting the adoption of Interactive Democracy in a number of ways:-
  • Issues can be researched with ease. They can check the facts of others' arguments.
  • Voters can choose to access a variety of news and information sites which aren't monopolised by large media organisations.
  • Votes can be cast from a personal mobile device in a convenient and secure way, probably boosting "turnout".
  • The device can be carried to a private and secure location providing better secrecy of votes cast.
  • Voters can be prompted to vote, boosting "turnout".

Monday, 17 March 2014

The Key Question

Referenda in Crimea and Scotland have one key yes/no question, but is that question the right one? Shouldn't the Crimeans have been asked if they wanted to be independent, part of Ukraine or part of Russia? The same complexity exists over Scotland's independence referendum as Merryn Somerset Webb explains in her article here. She points out that Quebec did things differently in the 1980s, offering a second referendum once details had been negotiated.
The problem with most referenda is that they are expensive to administer and costly to replicate. Not so with Interactive Democracy (ID): doing it online has tiny marginal costs. With ID, referenda can be frequent and thus much more accurate and refined.
And I suggest that if you don't vote then your Member of Parliament should vote on your behalf, so that frequent plebiscites don't become onerous yet you are always represented.

Sunday, 16 March 2014

Fragile by Design

Fragile by Design is written by two academics, Charles Calomiris and Stephen Haber, who set out to discover why some banking systems are unstable. MoneyWeek reported that
"They looked at five national case studies: the UK and the US (both democracies, yet prone to crisis); Canada (virtually crisis-free); Mexico (a crisis-prone autocracy); and Brazil (a bit of both).
"What they found was fascinating. Starting from the elegantly simple premise that a crisis occurs when banks hold too little capital and/or too many risky assets, the problem, logically, must be inadequate regulation. So their thesis is that regulatory standards and credit provision are "captured" by political special interests. While democracies generally fare better than autocracies, often this is just a matter of degree. Unfortunately it seems that boom/bust cycles are woven into the very fabric of US democracy."
Would Interactive Democracy change this?
Who knows, but it would change the game: power wouldn't be concentrated in a few hands; whistle blowers would be empowered; education about the banking system would be encouraged and transparency enhanced.
Because regulators would be more accountable to the electorate (who could call for their dismissal); anyone could create an initiative proposing changes; and the ensuing public debate, supported by probing journalism, professional bankers and academics, would shine a light on the system. This last point, that Interactive Democracy educates through debate, is my favourite advantage of direct democracy. It may also be more adaptable and less prone to opaque influence.
MoneyWeek's verdict on the book: "This is a great history of political interference in banking regulation - but a definitive analysis of the recent crisis it is not."
Inspired by MoneyWeek, 14 March 2014.

Thursday, 27 February 2014

Skin in the Game

I once posted that if you pay you should have your say - i.e. if you pay tax you should be able to vote (frequently). The counter argument to that is that many people are net takers of benefits, not net payers of tax, and that any increase in their voting power will lead to an increase in socialism and a redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. Yet Swiss direct democracy has resulted in the opposite. Why?
It could be a cultural thing. It could be caused by a quirk of history and the timing of events. Or it could be that voters want the best for their country because that is best for them. Because they have skin in the game. And they understand that taxing the rich excessively is likely to cause them to flee to more welcoming jurisdictions which will be a loss to all. Because the rich are more mobile and typically, as a proportion of their wealth, have less money tied up in fixed assets - they have less skin in the game. On the other hand, the average voter has more of their wealth tied up in their house, is less mobile and has more skin in the game. Thus they are often more committed to their country.
Yet in a representative system the wealthy can influence politics through their ability to fund political parties. The average voter has little say. Perhaps this imbalance leads to more income inequality.
This post was inspired by "Antifragile" by Nassim Taleb.

Thursday, 20 February 2014


There is no provision for a Recall Bill within this Parliament. "In the wake of the expenses scandal, all three mainstream parties pledged to include Recall." According to Zac Goldsmith MP's site. More broken promises! He continues to campaign for it and notes "Recall exists in many countries. Most often it involves allowing voters to run petitions, and where a threshold is reached, that triggers a Recall vote, or referendum on whether the MP should continue in his or her job. If a majority votes to recall their MP, then there is a by-election."
When interviewed on Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 Show (20/02/14) he said that arguments against direct democracy tend to be arguments against democracy its self. Something I tend to agree with: if the electorate can't be trusted to decide on issues then how can they be trusted to choose leaders? In many ways deciding on issues is easier. But there's still a role for politicians. I want both.

Wednesday, 19 February 2014

London Sucks Wealth Out Of Britain

Aditya Chakrabortty wrote in The Guardian

"At the end of 2011, the IPPR North think tank totted up the government's transport projects until 2015. Londoners enjoyed public investment of £2731 per head; the northeast recieved just £5..... Of the 657 UK firms involved in public/private partnership deals, 75% operated out of London and the southeast between 2004 and 2012."
Reported in MoneyWeek 14/02/14.

It is no coincidence that London is the center of British politics and receives the benefits noted above. If political power was implemented through Interactive Democracy we could see a far more equitable distribution of investment, given that the majority live away from London.

Monday, 10 February 2014

Swiss Referendum v European Union

A recent Swiss referendum voted (by a slim 0.6%) to restrict immigration, which forces politicians to renegotiate their relationship with the European Union within three years. This is an interesting example of Direct Democracy impacting the EU's "democratic deficit".
For a list of Swiss referendums visit Wikipedia, by clicking here.

Wednesday, 15 January 2014

Compensate for Fallibility

I think that wide use of voting can compensate for fallibility. How? Here's a thought experiment.
No one is perfect. Just imagine the best leaders you can, they still make mistakes. Perhaps less than the average person, but probably 5% of the time. So, if they are in a position to make the decisions, 5% of them are wrong.
Now, imagine instead putting the decision to a vote. If, on average all the voters are right only 60% of the time (greater than 50% will do), then the majority carries the day and, in theory, every decision is right!
OK, maybe this sounds too good to be true, but this analysis suggests that direct democracy will lead to more good choices than experts/leaders make on their own. It is likely to be more right than a vote in parliament, partly because it uses a bigger population but mostly because the electorate are more independent, not pressured by party whips or lobbyists.

Monday, 30 September 2013

Ignorant of History and Other Countries

In the following TED talk James Flynn explains how we have improved our cognitive abilities over time - I have previously argued that this supports my assertion that, as a population, we can do Interactive Democracy. But he also claims that we are becoming "ignorant of history and of other countries" and, therefore, we "can't do politics". This runs counter to my argument. But I'd suggest that by debating each issue and by ensuring the quality of that debate through presenting it in a logical manner and ensuring it is factually correct, then we can educate ourselves about history and geopolitics and thus are capable of "do[ing] politics".
(Switzerland has being doing direct democracy for more than 150 years. Back then hardly anyone was as educated as the average person today!)

Sunday, 29 September 2013

The Price of Inequality

In his book "The Price of Inequality" Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz explains how increasing inequality can damage a society and an economy. He writes that "The 1% has worked hard to convince the rest that an alternative world is not possible; that doing anything that the 1% doesn't want will inevitably harm the 99%." His book argues against this and for a "more dynamic and more efficient economy and a fairer society." He points out that "politics and economics are inseparable, and that if we are to preserve a system of one person one vote - rather than one dollar one vote - reforms in our [US] political system will be required..."
I suggest that Interactive Democracy, where each voter can vote on each issue, is the sort of reform that would check how money talks and what it says. Much of the money may be spent by the few, but most of the votes are spent by the many. Not just once every few years but many times a year. It creates a free market of ideas and innovation and empowers each voter to reach Stiglitz' goal: a better economy and fairer society.
For arguments on why this won't lead to the plundering of the rich by the many, or a bloated state sector, please see my previous post, below. But I'd like to add that one reason that the rich can't be taxed 'til the pips squeak is because they will have up and left long before then. In a fair minded culture and society the majority of people understand this and respect the rich for what they contribute.

Saturday, 28 September 2013

More Democracy, More Socialism?

Douglas Carswell MP argues against the notion that more democracy means more socialism in his book "The End of Politics and the Birth of iDemocracy". He looks at the history of emancipation in a number of countries and examines the effect on government spending:
"Look at America. Almost every white adult male American had the vote since the era of Jacksonian democracy in the 1830s and 1840s. Yet throughout the whole of the nineteenth century, federal spending as a percentage of GDP never once rose above 3% of GDP during peacetime."
Carswell argues that this is because taxes were relatively flat and, as the many paid them, they voted to keep government small and/or cost effective. Yet in a full direct democracy the electorate can also vote on taxes, introducing the concern for some that they will plunder the wealthy. Switzerland, renown for its long history of direct democracy, has had referenda on taxes and may well do so again. But it turns out that they have a relatively small government, further disproving that more democracy leads to bloated government. Swiss government spending as a percentage of GDP is less than most western countries. For comparison here are the 2011 figures:

UK 47.3%
USA 38.9%
Switzerland 32%

(2011 Index of Economic Freedom[9] by The Heritage Foundation and The Wall Street Journal, reported here.)

Thursday, 26 September 2013

The End of Politics and The Birth of iDemocracy

In his interesting book "The End of Politics and The Birth of iDemocracy" Douglas Carswell MP lists the most popular initiatives on the British ePetition site as a way of illustrating that the British public aren't the dangerously ignorant mob that opponents of direct democracy would sometimes have us believe:
  1. "Convicted rioters to lose their benefits - 217921
  2. Disclosure of all government documents relating to 1989 Hillsborough disaster - 109482
  3. Cheaper petrol and diesel - 60045
  4. Make financial education a compulsory part of the school curriculum - 40069
  5. Retain the ban on capital punishment - 24822
  6. Keep Formula 1 free to air in the UK - 21301
  7. Referendum on EU membership - 21252
  8. Restore capital punishment - 16996
  9. Public and private pension increases - change from RPI to CPI - 16756
  10. Increase policing - 9366
(Source: Cabinet Office ePetitions site 2011)"

Those of you who would like to see small government and low taxes will warm to Carswell's book. He predicts that new technology will make it inevitable. He also argues against the view that direct democracy will lead to the many ramping up taxes for the wealthy few.

Wednesday, 25 September 2013

Direct Democracy Ireland

Direct Democracy Ireland includes some interesting stuff including this report on calls by UN adviser Alfred de Zaya for more Direct Democracy:

“I am dismayed that notwithstanding lip service to democracy, too many governments seem to forget that in a democracy, it is the people who are sovereign,” he said, adding that many governments appear to be more responsive to special interests such as the military-industrial complex, financial banking and transnational corporations, than to the wishes of their own populations, which creates massive social and economic inequalities. The disconnect between power and the people must be remedied”