Why People Contribute

Why would people contribute to Interactive Democracy?

In "We Think" Charles Leadbeater writes "In open-source software projects, a few are inspired by a hatred of proprietary software providers, especially Microsoft. A minority are driven by altruistic motives. Some see their involvement as a way to get a better job: by showing off their skills in the open-source community they can enhance their chances of being employed. For the majority the main motivation is recognition..."

Maybe this mirrors the reasons why people would contribute to Interactive Democracy: because they hate stuff and want to change it; because they are altruistic and see it as a responsibility of a good citizen; to gain rank in their political party or amongst their working colleagues; or for simple recognition. But the last points may be a double edged sword. Often people abstain from discussing politics or religion because they are contentious issues and invite hostility. So, would people want their names associated with ideas submitted through the ePetition system that their bosses, or potential bosses, may disagree with? To side-step this issue it may be sensible to allow ideas to be submitted and supported anonymously - securely registered and counted by the ID system to avoid any chance of fraud.

"Strong Democracy"

In "Strong Democracy", 1984, Benjamin Barber wrote that future technologies would

"strengthen civic education, guarantee equal access to information, tie
individual and institutions into networks that will make real participatory
discussion and debate possible across great distances"

"The web can fracture"

"Even when people engage in political debate on the web they often talk to people they already agree with. Liberal blogs tend to link to other liberal blogs; environmentalists connect with other environmentalists. The web can fracture democratic debate into partisan spaces where people of like mind gather together; democracy depends on creating public spaces where people of different minds debate and resolve their differences."

Charles Leadbeater in We-Think.

The proposed Interactive Democracy system is a formal way of introducing ideas into a public forum. It provides a system of peer and parliamentary review but does not prescribe where or how public debates should be held. If ID is done correctly, these debates will emerge on TV, on the radio, in the papers, in political parties, on the web, at work, with union members, in professional journals, among friends and family in the pub and over the dinner table. All these natural channels will be given the impetus that comes from taking part.

The Rise of the Amateur Professional

Amateur Professionals, or Pro-Ams, are those "people who undertake activities as amateurs but to professional standards." We are all amateur politicians, with differing degrees of professionalism, and many of us have our own profession which is often influenced by government policy. Interactive Democracy provides a framework for all of us to directly influence society and enhance the creativity of political life.

The following lecture by Charles Leadbeater explains how business organisations are challenged by, and can benefit from, Pro-Ams and customers, who help to create new product.

Problem Solving With Diversity

In "We Think", Charles Leadbetter considers combining people with different thinking tools/skills to help solve problems. He writes "The larger the group and the more diverse perspectives are involved, the greater the benefits from combining them. Take five people, each with a different skill. That gives ten possible pairings of skills. Add a sixth person with a different skill. That gives not 12 pairs but another five possible pairings... A group with 20 different tools at its disposal has 190 possible pairs of tools and more than 1000 combinations of three tools. A group with 13 tools has almost as many tools - 87% - as a group with 15 tools. Not much of a gap. But if a task requires combining four tools it is a different story. The group with 15 tools has 1365 possible combinations of four tools. The group with 13 tools has 715, or about 52%. Groups with larger sets of diverse tools and skills are at an advantage if they can combine effectively to take on complex tasks."
This concept of creativity through diversity could be a key advantage of Interactive Democracy, which seeks to integrate the thoughts, opinions and values of millions of people.

Violent Victims

The Conservative Party has pledged to review the rights of householders to use violence to protect their property. As it stands, the law allows householders to use reasonable force and it is at the court's discretion to judge what was reasonable or not. Shadow Home Secretary, Chris Grayling, suggested that only those using "grossly disproportionate" force should be punished.

A Today Programme showed that a law that allowed home owners to use "any means to defend their home from intruders" was the most popular proposal in their interactive poll, with 26000 votes. (More on this here.) Maybe this inspired the Tory initiative, or perhaps it was the recent news that Munir Hassain was jailed last week for attacking an armed burglar who had tied up and threatened his family. Andrew Marr quizzed Alan Johnson on this during his Sunday morning show but I was disappointed that they didn't get to the nub of the case: Munir and his brother had chased the attacker down the road and continued to beat him repeatedly with a cricket bat and hockey stick, resulting in brain damage; the court, based on witness testimony, thought it was a horrific attack and not a forceful arrest. The burglar is too badly injured to stand trial for his crimes.

So, what of referenda on such issues? Could there be a rational debate on this issue?

Most people can easily empathise with other householders but not with burglars, thank goodness. If flight or fight are the natural reactions then most people realise that when they are attacked in their homes, their "castles", they may have no natural place to run away to, so the fight response feels right. And many conscientious people would consider it their duty as citizens to chase and arrest a burglar by using the type of force the police would use to bring them to justice. The debate would probably be both deeply emotional and rational. It would surely involve the police, judiciary and former criminals and would likely review this recent case and many others.

It seems to me that our current law, with its vague "reasonable force", disempowers victims trying to defend themselves and their property. A debate that involves everyone may not only clarify what is reasonable but could enhance citizens sense of empowerment in more ways than one.

More from the Guardian here.

Happiness Prospers in Democracy

Professor Bruno Frey has studied happiness in Switzerland, comparing one region (or Canton) with another. He concludes that "The better the opportunities for direct influence on political decisions per referendum are, the more satisfied the people will be." More here.

In his article "Happiness Prospers in Democracy", based on a survey of 6000 people in Switzerland, he writes

1. "the more developed the institutions of direct democracy, the happier the individuals are;
2. people derive procedural utility from the possibility of participating in the direct democratic process over and above a more favourable political outcome"

Bruno Frey is Professor of Economics at Zurich University. Here's his web site, which includes many articles.

The Difference

"The Difference (by Scott Page, University of Michigan) reveals that progress and innovation may depend less on lone thinkers with enormous IQs than on diverse people working together and capitalizing on their individuality. Page shows how groups that display a range of perspectives outperform groups of like-minded experts. Diversity yields superior outcomes, and Page proves it using his own cutting-edge research. Moving beyond the politics that cloud standard debates about diversity, he explains why difference beats out homogeneity, whether you're talking about citizens in a democracy or scientists in the laboratory. He examines practical ways to apply diversity's logic to a host of problems, and along the way offers fascinating and surprising examples, from the redesign of the Chicago "El" to the truth about where we store our ketchup."

Summary from Princeton Press

This book is brilliant. Page has a dazzling eclecticism.
- Max Bazerman, Harvard Business School

You can read a short interview with Scott Page about "The Difference" principle here.

Political Meritocracy

Representative Democracy may be considered a political meritocracy. Politicians are chosen by their party and, in theory, win elections based on their merit. The best of them gain the support of their peers to become leaders and senior figures. Long standing and experienced politicians may be appointed to the House of Lords.

All good stuff on the face of it. But being good at one thing, indeed many things, doesn't make you good at everything, and politics is a vastly diverse subject. No one person is likely able to master all of it. In reality meritocracy is more complicated and corruptible than the ideal:

1. How does the old boy network effect who is chosen to become a candidate?
2. Does the electorate vote for politicians or parties; do they judge the candidate effectively?
3. Does the best funded or the most capable candidate/party, win?
4. Can students of Machiavelli play the system and gain power?
5. Are Honours given fairly or is there bias in appointments to the Lords?
6. If meritocracy was perfect, wouldn't we be able to find the single best candidate to make decisions for us (someone the ancient Greeks called the aristoi, root of the word aristocrat)?

Though imperfect, I think the current political meritocracy needs to be a key element in the Interactive Democracy system because we need politicians to formulate laws, man committees, debate proposals, form governments and act in opposition. ID just allows public sentiment to flow into this process and check the results of it.

Interactive Democracy adds a meritocracy of ideas to the meritocracy of politicians, where the best proposals can jump through hurdles of debate and ballot to become policy.

Here's an interesting article about educational meritocracy from asiaone.

Should the Lakes and Dales expansion go to a public vote?

Should the Lakes and Dales expansion go to a public vote? Apparently both the Lib Dem MP, Tim Farron, and his Conservative opponent, Gareth McKeever, agree that it should. More here from LFTO.

Triggering a Referendum in Switzerland

In the Swiss system a federal referendum must be initiated if 50,000 people or 8 Cantons have petitioned to do so within 100 days.

Referendums within Cantons don't need so many people and may be triggered by other rules. For example if expenditure exceeds certain levels.

Referendums on changes to the constitution, or joining international organisations for trade or defence, require 100,000 signatures within 18 months.

In the past, the government has often initiated counter proposals that have won out. Reports suggest that even the threat of a citizens initiative has prompted the Swiss Parliament to reform the law without the need for a referendum.

More from wikipedia here.

********************

The proposed Interactive Democracy system could easily be modified to accommodate an ePetition with a certain trigger level, say 50,000 people. On the other hand, a system that allows the most popular petition to rise to the top of the list and be considered by Parliament, may have the effect of integrating those people interested in politics into the system. In particular, members of political parties would be likely to contribute their signatures and, therefore, have more say over Parliamentary business and the conduct of their Party.

Having a long list of ePetitions, some of which may be quite radical, may foster debate and initiate better, more creative proposals that rise to the top. All of which is much easier to do with an Internet based system. It will be interesting to see how Swiss Direct Democracy adapts to the web.

"disgraceful day for democracy"

"While we have never wanted this dispute, it is a disgraceful day for democracy when a court can overrule such an overwhelming decision by employees taken in a secret ballot" said Unite's joint General Secretaries about their planned British Airways strike (according to this BBC report). I guess the customers, management and shareholders may disagree.
If there were an Interactive Democracy system in place would Unite utilise it to quickly re-run their ballot? Would the shareholders use it to demand management reforms? Would customers use it to call for government intervention? Would someone propose that customers always be compensated by the company in the event of a strike (regardless of the inevitable job losses that may result)?
What is clear is that Unite's claim to democracy doesn't involve the other stake holders that the law may be trying to protect.
On the other hand, the judge seems to have ruled on a technicality - that "Unite had improperly included BA employees already set to leave the company". Many will doubt that the judgment will effect the clear 92.5% majority in favour of the strike, but it may buy customers and negotiators more time.

Interactive Democracy IS Education

I have heard it said that education is not just about imparting facts. It encourages people to think for themselves, to analyse, to create and to learn empathy.

I've also heard it said that learning should be life-long and not just for the youth.

In these senses Interactive Democracy IS education: it encourages and empowers people to think about issues, to analyse problems, to create solutions, to debate with each other and to learn from other people's experiences, thereby empathising with them.

The quality of the learning that comes from ID depends on the quality of the debate. The stories about each issue, the pros and cons, and the implications, should all be voiced through parliament and the media: leaders should be teachers.

But daft, amateurish and naive ideas, expressed through ePetitions, aren't a bad thing. Half baked proposals may inspire others to offer a better solution - a creative process.

The Flynn Effect

The Flynn Effect is the term used to describe the rise in average IQs in the population. There is much debate as to the cause of this: it may be improved education, better nutrition, the modern stimulus of a diverse media or heterosis (genetic mixing). Unfortunately, recent studies have shown a levelling out of average IQ results, especially in developed countries, and even a small decline.
It has been suggested that an intelligent electorate with a good level of education is a prerequisite for Interactive Democracy. I'm all for an education system that concentrates on teaching diverse ways of how to think, rather than what to think, and I'd like to see wide use of the techniques promoted by De Bono and Tony Buzan. However, the difference between the most intelligent people in the country and the average intelligence is likely to remain pretty much the same, even with better education, in which case why not continue to pursue a political meritocracy such as representative democracy? If you accept that representative democracy has its faults and that it could be improved by more electorate power (as I argue on this blog), then waiting for a better educated, more intelligent population means we may be waiting forever.
Instead I'd prefer to see a slow and experimental progression towards ID. The first step could be an ePetition system that forces Parliamentary debate on popular issues, like a more powerful version of the one already employed in the Scottish Parliament.

It's also worth noting that the Swiss direct democracy system has evolved over the last 150 years, starting with a population that wasn't educated to today's standards and didn't benefit from any of the drivers of the Flynn effect. Neither did they have a diverse media or the web to inform their choices, facilitate research or stimulate debate.

Jim Flynn is the Emeritus Professor of Political Studies at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Simon Cowell does Democracy

According to several media reports, Simon Cowell is considering a politics show inspired, to some degree, by debates between politicians on American TV. Perhaps it will follow the X-Factor telephone voting format.

It's great to see that someone in the media business recognises the potential that interactive entertainment (I mean politics) has. There is perhaps nothing more entertaining to the human species as the interplay of personalities; their actions and reactions. Simon says "Politics is show business these days. More and more so." I'm much more interested in policies than politicians but it will be interesting to see how the show develops. If it enhances political debate, the understanding of the issues, and attracts a wide audience, then that's a good thing in my book. If it dumbs down serious subjects or falls flat on its face then that's not good for Interactive Democracy. The devil is in the detail; and design and development may overcome many difficulties. At the very least it will be an interesting experiment and may even lead to a better way of conducting democracy than the one I have outlined here.

*************

Of course, there is a certain feeling amongst music buyers that Simon is part of an industry that "pushes" music on us and neglects original artists of all types. Simon's business is unapologetically commercial and we are persuaded to like what he likes. This doesn't sit well with the creative ideal of Interactive Democracy: that new ideas should be encouraged and that people should follow their own conscience on how they vote. Yet it could form a strand of ID if it were balanced by many other channels and voices.

Aristocracy

The historian Herodotus (c.485-425BC) wrote about the Athenian state, "nothing could be found better than the one man, the best." Thucydides (c.460-c.400BC) commented "It was in theory, a democracy, but in fact it became the rule of the first Athenian." The word used for this singular and exceptional man was aristoi, the word from which we derive aristocracy. Interestingly the concept of the aristoi grew from Pericles' ideal of merit or meritocracy.

There are problems with this concept of rule by the best:

• How do you define best; best at what? Are they good at everything?
• A few people cannot know everything; they cannot experience it all.
• The majority are seldom motivated to carry out the wishes of the few; the ethic of citizenship is involvement.

These are the same problems that Representative Democracy faces and the issues that Interactive Democracy addresses.

The Athenian Assembly around 450BC numbered about 21000 citizens and was by today's standards quite tiny. Plato's ideal was a state of no more than 5040 voters who should know each others qualities. However, with modern technology, it will be possible to integrate many millions of voters into the democratic ideal.

More on the Athenian Origins of Direct Democracy here.

Direct Democracy Q&A

This link takes you to the Direct Democracy Campaign Q&A. Worth a read.

Quick Wiki

Wiki is Hawaiian for quick and is an acronym for "what I know is". The prime example of a wiki is wikipedia, the on-line encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to or edit.

Joe Kraus, co-founder of JotSpot, the wiki software company, says most wikis are best suited for small, well defined groups of people collaborating on projects of limited duration. They may be excellent tools for pressure groups or even for Parliament.

Immediacy Trumps Media

The manipulation of voters by media conglomerates and tycoons is a concern for democracy, especially Interactive Democracy. This may be lessened by the multi-various voices on the web. In addition, Parliament should seize the opportunity of attaching their views to the ID user interface. This could be in the form of Plus, Minus and Interesting points, listed for each proposal. The immediacy of this information counterbalances the power of a free but, perhaps, biased 'press': Immediacy trumps media!

Tim Berners-Lee

"The danger is not that we ask too much of the internet, but too little, that we turn it into just another piece of kit when it could be so much more significant than that, a new platform for how we could organise ourselves, to find knowledge together, to work out what is true and to decide together what we should do about it." Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web.

Free Party Membership

In the proposed Interactive Democracy system I imagine that political parties with the most members will garner the most financial support from those wealthy individuals and institutions who want to influence us. This is because Party Members will probably be emailed persuasive arguments about each issue advising them how to vote. It therefore makes sense to offer free party membership.

Some thoughts:

1. If you have a broad interest in politics it makes sense that you join several parties to find out their various perspectives.
2. How parties develop and capitalise on their membership lists will be a key competency for them in the future.
3. Will this allow new parties to emerge? I suspect the strong brands, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat, are best positioned as strong political influencers.
4. Does this undermine the egalitarian nature of Interactive Democracy? Ultimately you have the power to cast your vote any way you see fit, so, no, I don't think that this mix of capital, membership and persuasion is particularly odious, and a good deal less so than today's poisonous brew.

£40 000 Headlines

The front page headlines are really important for newspapers: they're what grab peoples' attention and persuade them to spend their cash to read the full story. A good headline may be worth £40 000 in sales!

The news that the government "spent" £850 billion to bail out the banks, and that that equates to £40 000 per household, certainly grabbed attention, especially in light of the demands from RBS to pay £1.5 billion in bonuses. Outrage!

But the headlines aren't the full story. According to this report from the BBC the £850 billion figure isn't actually all spent. The vast majority of it is loans and loan guarantees, which will only be required if the economy goes from bad to worse.

£37 billion was spent buying RBS shares, making us all owners of that bank. I hope we will be able to sell it for a profit in the future, but if we are to find a buyer it needs to be an attractive proposition, run by talented staff. By denying them their enormous (I assume, contracted) bonuses won't the best talent leave, undermining the very value of the bank that we own? Will we cut our nose to spite our face?

And, from another perspective, the £1.5 billion in bonuses means a tax take for the exchequer (at 40%) of £600 million - enough to buy a couple of new hospitals(?). What doesn't go to the exchequer may be saved, boosting liquidity, invested, boosting pension values, or spent, boosting retail sales and protecting jobs.

Whether you agree with my analysis or not (admittedly there's more to it than this), the point is that Interactive Democracy needs to be a slow and considered process, not one that reacts to every headline. I've previously written about the need for truth in the media, which I think is essential for Interactive Democracy, but my concern in writing this post is that what may be a true headline disguises a bigger, deeper truth and may give the wrong impression.

(According to my calculations the £37 billion invested in RBS equates to £1423 per household, assuming there are 26 million households in the UK.)

Science v Politics: The Moral Maze

Radio 4's Moral Maze debated the relationship between science and politics. It's worth a listen. Some of the points were:

• funding of what scientific evidence is to be gathered, adds a political bias
• scientists are human and therefore corruptible
• science its self is a process for gathering hard evidence which has no morality
• the media can sensationalise scientific reports
• lay people aren't often equipped to understand science
• there's more to politics than science (e.g. morality)
• scientists may consider their evidence as more important than debate
• debaters may reinforce their arguments with narrow scientific studies to try to quash debate

I think democracy should be informed by science. I would like to see a publicly funded scientific institution, honour bound to report hard, morally incorruptible, evidence. The meta studies they carry out should be instigated by Parliament (within the ID process) and not funded by pressure groups. This can then form one aspect of the debate about future policy.

Freedom of the Minority or Control by the Majority?

Would Interactive Democracy encourage the majority to lay down the law against minorities? Would there be a loss of liberal freedoms?

It may be that by encouraging political debate amongst the wider population, individuals begin to change their views and realise that what they value isn't necessarily what other people hold dear. This understanding of the variation of human ideals could have a liberalising effect. On the other hand, vociferous debate can be polarising. (Please see this post about Group Polarisation.)

If Parliament were able to list the pros and cons of each issue I suspect this would have the effect of helping to remove the emotion from the national debate, foster rationalism, reduce polarisation and encourage understanding. This list would presented at the point of voting. Others, with strong convictions, may offer different, more stringent, leadership.

In the UK we have a strong liberal (small 'L') tradition, perhaps encouraged by the Golden Rule and the necessities of 60 million people living on a small island. I suspect this cultural identity would emerge in ballots that could, if allowed, limit the freedoms of minorities.

DNA Debate

According to The Guardian, "European Court rules DNA database breaches human rights".

For some time now police forces around the country have been collecting DNA from suspects not convicted of any crime. It is my understanding that Police Authorities have had slightly varying policies on this and those in Scotland already destroy samples taken from those that aren't convicted. I have also heard that it is police policy and not Parliamentary law that demands these samples.

Whether you agree or disagree with the policy, it is curious that, on the one hand, implementation of DNA sampling varies depending on the judgement of the Police Authority, many of whom are unelected, and on the other, is effected by a remote European Court. How does democracy work on this? It could be the type of wide debate that would benefit from Interactive Democracy, resulting in a referendum.

"The Assault on Liberty"

In his book "The Assault on Liberty", Dominic Raab wrote "Having secured a landslide overall majority of 179 seats in the House of Commons [1997], the new administration was well placed to force through virtually any legislation without serious risk of defeat. The sheer volume of new criminal law and security measures, introduced by the new government over the course of a decade, would displace the common law presumption in favour of personal freedom that held sway in the country for centuries."

Interactive Democracy offers safeguards against loss of liberty by widening the debate amongst voters of every persuasion. It gives us a new liberty, it empowers us to get involved.

More from the Independent here.

Heroine Harman

Harriet Harman was reported as saying "men cannot be left to run things on their own... In a country where women regard themselves as equal, they are not prepared to see men just running the show themselves." As a heroine of emancipation, she advocates more women in positions of power. Today they are under represented in politics: only 20% of MPs are women; and in business only 18 hold board positions in FTSE100 companies. More from the Guardian here.

Amongst arguments about bias, meritocracies, child rearing and glass ceilings, Interactive Democracy offers another perspective: It empowers every female voter to contribute ideas and pass judgment on policy whether local, national or international.

Switzerland

Switzerland runs a form of Direct Democracy. You can read about it here.

It's interesting to note that their form of direct democracy has evolved over many centuries, suggesting that it can work amongst a populace with a medieval level of education.

One of the distinctions of the Swiss system is that votes are carried only by a combination of an overall majority and a majority of cantons (similar to counties). This may be especially important in Switzerland where areas are clearly and dramatically divided by mountains, and would have been especially important in the olden days when mobility was so much harder.

Political Lobbying

I've just been watching a recording of Channel 4's Dispatches programme about the influence of pro-Israel lobbyists on British Politicians and journalists. Frightening! It reports on the funding of various politicians and parties by pro-Israel groups and how pressure is put on the media. This would be bad enough coming from a British pressure group, but these people promote a foreign power.

Mao famously said "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." If we have overcome violence as a political force, when will we dispatch the insidious force of money?

"One person, one vote!" isn't that the ethos expected to undermine "money is power"?Interactive Democracy retains the voting power of individuals instead of delegating those rights to politicians who require finance to propel them into office. ID helps to break the hold that money has over our political system.

A trip to the Polling Station discourages thoughtless voters.

There is an argument that Internet based Interactive Democracy is too easy and that the very effort of making a trip to cast your vote discourages those that really don't care about politics and haven't thought about the issues. This may be true to an extent. But it may also discourage many others: those that are busy, those that are disabled or old and infirm. I wonder, if the weather takes a turn for the worse, do fewer people vote?

Certain areas of the country carry a well documented historical bias for one party or another: the Tory/Labour heartlands. Is this evidence of people making the effort to vote without giving fair consideration to all the options? And some people feel it is a moral duty to vote, despite having no strong conviction on the matter... My point is that even if a trip to a voting booth discourages thoughtless voters it may do nothing to encourage thoughtfulness.

On the other hand, I suspect that Internet voting on individual topics, with the pros and cons listed in bullet format (created by Parliament) and with fingertip access to the wealth of information and debate on the world wide web may encourage more voters and more deep consideration of the issues.

I'm sure that votes will be cast by those rolling in from the Pub during the early hours of the morning, in no fit state to articulate anything, but they may be changed the next day (votes can be reviewed and changed at any time prior to the cut off time). Besides, those votes cast randomly, and without due consideration, are likely to fall on both sides of the argument, balancing each other out.

Secret Loans and True Value

The Bank of England has only recently admitted that it provided £62 billion to HBOS and RBS in October 2008, with the full knowledge and consent of the Government. Mervyn King recognised that the secrecy of this loan was a crucial element in preventing a collapse in the banking sector and was thus in the public interest.

Previously I have called for systems to ensure that politicians tell the truth, but the apparent necessity of this deceit calls that idea into question. However, it may fall into a category of exceptional circumstances in the public interest, and I continue to believe that there should be legal sanctions against politicians who commit more common and self serving lies.

More on this story here.

Majority on Minarets

This link to the BBC describes how the Swiss have voted in a ban on the building of minarets through their Interactive Democracy type system. Whether you agree or not, this is a clear majority decision. However, Amnesty International has suggested that the Swiss Supreme court may overturn the ban.

If Interactive Democracy were implemented in Britain, with similar majority decisions against minority religions, it would be interesting to consider how the Law Lords would get involved in the application of the Human Rights Act. If they did overturn the majority decision I feel that they would be honour bound to make recommendations to Parliament about how to reconcile the disconnect between the existing law and the referendum result. It may then go to another round of votes.

Lenin and Democracy

In 1919 the Communist International adopted Lenin's "Theses on Bourgeois Democracy and the Dictatorship of the Proletariat". In it he wrote "It follows that proletarian dictatorship must inevitably entail not only a change in democratic forms and institutions, generally speaking, but precisely such a change as provides an unparalleled extension of the actual enjoyment of democracy by those oppressed by capitalism, the toiling classes."

Interactive Democracy is not communism and is not shaped by any class theory. It is much more egalitarian than that, dispersing democratic power more equally than today. Its purpose is not seizing power, it is to provide a system whereby good ideas for social change can emerge without being trapped in the mire of centre ground party politics. However, combined with the emergence of Web 2.0, ID could loosen the grip that "money" plays in pulling the levers of power. Something Lenin may well have been pleased about.

If Interactive Democracy were, in some way, to lead to the smallest fraction of the terrors of Stalinism, (as Marxism lead through Lenin to Stalin) it should be killed off right now. However, this is unlikely as ID spreads political power and makes it very hard for a dictator to emerge.

Wilde Bludgeoning

"Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people." So said Oscar Wilde. He is not alone in his condemnation of Democracy. But what system is better? Or can democracy be improved?

More on Oscar Wilde here.

Thomas Carlyle

Thomas Carlyle's comment that Democracy is "monstrous, loud, blatant, inarticulate as the voice of chaos" may strike a chord with some. (His description of economics as "the dismal science" may be applauded by many more.)

I hope that a clear system for representing ideas, debating them and measuring their support, even in the face of loud, diverse, inarticulate and chaotic points of view, would make democracy somewhat less dismal than the Yaa/Boo politics of the 1800s, or today.

The modern media, in all its guises, can help. But designing Interactive Democracy to utilise the Internet is a critical step forward. Done well it could present the pros and cons of an issue, as discussed in Parliament, engender debate and provide a secure ballot. However, we would still need systems to prevent lying by politicians and journalists, and a scientific service beyond the influence of the government.

Gerrymandering

In 1812, Elbridge Gerry, governor of Massachusettes, signed a bill that re-districted his state to the benefit of the Democratic Republican Party. This fiddling with boundaries for political benefit has since been called gerrymandering as the new shape of the territory was said to look like a salamander. More on this here.

An interesting question is "Will Interactive Democracy foster more gerrymandering?"

Well, it's upto the local people to decide if demarcation lines should be redrawn. But, in the ID system, each person is empowered to vote issue by issue, so there may be less desire for manipulation for party benefit. And if one party were to try, the opposition can drum up support to oppose it.

Margins of Safety and Stalemate

I've previously suggested that majorities should have a margin of safety so that, for example, the vote can only be passed if the split is 52% to 48%, or greater and not if the vote is 51% to 49%. This allows for errors in the voting system.

However, the bigger the safety margin used, the more likely is the situation that the vote will be "hung" and the issue unresolved: a stalemate that could hamstring politics. It is therefore important to make sure that the voting system is accurate and without corruption, so that margins of safety don't need to be broad. If ballots are still indecisive it may be prudent to give parliament the carrying vote.

Like kids in a sweet shop

In a system of direct democracy, would the majority want everything, like kids in a sweet shop, spending every penny... and more?

It must be the role of the government to manage the budget, which puts them in the difficult position of saying "No!"

This paints a picture of voters with the maturity of children. I believe that this is far from the case. The typical adult often makes complex personal financial decisions and can easily understand that governments have finite resources and that wants are virtually infinite and must be prioritised.

That's not to say that the government (and opposition) shouldn't be offering leadership, explaining the limits of what can be afforded, the consequences of decisions and the rational for their own preferences.

YouGov

According to a YouGov poll published in the Daily Telegraph on 29/11/04:

• 59% of voters thought that "most MPs make a lot of money by using public office improperly"


• 78% agreed that "to win elections, most parliamentary candidates make promises they have no intention of keeping"


• 85% believed that "most MPs will tell lies if they feel the truth would hurt them politically"

And all this before the MPs expenses scandal!

Glasgow Disillusionment?

Only 33.2% turned out for the recent by-election in Glasgow North East with Willie Bain, the local Labour candidate, winning with 12231 votes. The contest was triggered by the resignation of Michael Martin, the former Speaker of the House of Commons and now Lord Martin of Springburn.

Only 33.2%! Is this the public saying "what's the point, they're all as bad as each other"?

On Target, Missing the Point

"[Government] Targets have increasingly become a means of enforcing compliance, through applying both rewards and penalties. This introduces a degree of pressure to achieve arbitrary ends, which in turn forces professionals to stray dangerously from prioritising the interests of the citizens they should serve."

Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party

D Carswell et al

Within Interactive Democracy public service providers will inevitably become aware of the power wielded by local voters. I would expect this to be a positive motivation to care for customers.

Desire for Power

"The sad truth is that a desire for power is hard-wired into human DNA. Politicians, like other members of the species, like being in control. What holds them back is an elaborate political structure based on checks and balances and the dispersal of power. Without such a structure, all governments would be like Zimbabwe's. Such structures do not evolve on their own, and a tiny number of people, whether historically or geographically, have been lucky enough to live under them.

"The natural tendency of all governments, being flawed and human institutions, is toward the agglomeration of power."

Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party

J Norman et al

Interactive Democracy re-defines the power balance to help keep governments in check, but it's real purpose is to allow individuals to better express their democratic will and to enhance public debate.

Devolved Power

"The reason that people vest little importance in the electoral process is that the electoral process no longer determines the destiny of the nation. Human rights judges lay down school uniform policy; police chiefs decide whether the possession of cannabis should be treated as a criminal offence; customs officers decree how much tobacco we may buy; Eurocrats forbid us to buy and sell in pounds."

Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party

by J Norman et al

Interactive Democracy provides ample opportunity for people to reclaim democratic rights. The re-balancing of power that it affords creates an indirect pressure on officials to act in line with their communities wishes even without implementing the petition/parliament/referendum process.

You can download a copy of Direct Democracy here. It costs £1 and argues for changes in Conservative Party Policy.

Democracy in Decline

Even prior to the MPs expenses scandal the public were becoming disenchanted with politicians and, even, the electoral process itself. A YouGov poll in The Daily Telegraph on 28 April 2005 showed that 79% of people believed that most or all politicians habitually lied, and an earlier survey claimed that 85% of voters believed that politicians would say anything to get elected. (As reported by J Norman, et al, in the conservative publication Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party.)

The graph above shows the percentage of the electorate that voted.

Interactive Democracy provides an additional system for holding politicians to account and balances their power by making democracy more democratic.

Not Nuclear In My Back Yard - NNIMBY

In light of the evidence on global warming many environmental campaigners, who would previously have opposed nuclear power, now see at as an essential part of the power generation mix. But even those who have long supported nuclear power generation think not in back yard (NIMBY). If the building of new nuclear power plants were put to a national referendum, I suspect we would give them the go ahead. But if Interactive Democracy were in place we could see local votes against new sites.

Does this scenario highlight a fatal flaw with Interactive Democracy: the problem of balancing national and local demands?

Today the planning process is designed to give locals a voice, but the recent government announcements have made it clear that building must start without endless local deliberation: a new independent commission will have the final say. Within the Interactive Democratic process, guided by Parliament, the national will may still hold sway. An alternative to the commission, and a more democratic method, would be to list the proposed sites in a national nuclear regeneration referendum, thus making it clear from the outset who will be effected.

The conflict of interests and ID debate are in them selves important. For example, local pressure against nuclear sites can help drive up safety standards and ensure compensatory improvements in the local infrastructure and economy. This may help provide a fairer national distribution of risks and benefits.

More here, from the BBC.

Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?

Michael J Sandel, the Harvard lecturer who delivered this year's BBC Reith Lectures on morality and markets, writes in his new book "Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?"

"Life in democratic societies is rife with disagreement about right and wrong, justice and injustice... Given the passion and intensity with which we debate moral questions in public life, we might be tempted to think that our moral convictions are fixed once and for all, by upbringing or faith, beyond the reach of reason. But if this were true, moral persuasion would be inconceivable, and what we take to be public debate about justice and rights would be nothing more than a volley of dogmatic assertions, an ideological food fight. At its worst, our politics comes close to this condition. But it need not be this way. Sometimes, an argument can change our minds."

He wrote in the Guardian (31/10/09),

"I think our public life would go better if we engaged more directly with the moral ideals underlying our political debates. In many ways, political argument today is morally impoverished. My book tries to bring philosophy to bear on the dilemmas we confront in contemporary politics - not in the expectation of consensus and agreement, but rather in the hope of contributing to a richer, more morally robust democratic deliberation."

According to the Guardian "Sandel maintains that he is no majoritarian: a more engaged citizenry, he argues, would actually provide a far stronger check on abuses of power, or on over powerful religious organisations." He criticises politics as "morally neutral".

It seems to me that Interactive Democracy engages the citizenry, empowers leaders to state their moral argument and has every chance of enhancing democratic deliberation. I wonder if Sandel would concur?

The Tyranny of the Majority

First used by Alexis de Tocqueville in his 1835 book "Democracy in America", the tyranny of the majority is the "criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's interest that that individual would be actively oppressed." (From Wikipedia).

Within Interactive Democracy there are a number of safeguards against such abuse:

1. The Human Rights Act
2. Leadership by Parliament
3. The presentation of all sides of an argument on the Interactive Democracy website
4. The Golden Rule: the morality of most people in most societies
5. The Liberal Media and the ability of stories to engender empathy towards individuals (the ultimate minority)
6. The vociferousness of motivated and organised minority groups versus the apathy of the majority (An argument by Mancur Olsen in "The Logic of Collective Action".)

It is sometimes argued that Representative Democracy protects minority interests, especially in the American system where vote trading is the norm, but it is hard to see how such a system works in the UK. My feeling is that fair morality and the liberal tradition are the main lines of defence against the persecution of minorities in Britain.

The Underlying Premise

The underlying premise of Interactive Democracy is that together, voters are capable of making good majority decisions. This comes from enhancing the quality and scale of the debate. Some may question these assumptions.

The party political system, as it stands today, provides a limited number of candidates and, in their competition for voters support, the best team emerges and is allowed to form a government. What I think about an issue and what you think is irrelevant. So long as someone votes, one flavour or another of the political elite (and their financial backers) will gain power.

Positive and Negative Freedom

Isaiah Berlin, in his 1958 essay "Two Concepts of Liberty", identified negative freedoms (from interference by others) and positive freedoms (to achieve). Interactive Democracy gives us all the positive freedom to express our democratic wishes, issue by issue, and gives us the democratic power to maintain our freedoms from interference by the state.

"To manipulate men, to propel them towards goals which you - the social reformer - see, but they may not, is to deny their human essence, to treat them as objects without wills of their own, and therefore degrade them." Isaiah Berlin, 1959.

Tyranny of the Majority

Yesterday, on Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 programme, Sir Iain Blair, talked about his role in the Metropolitan Police and how politicians influence policing. During the course of the interview he used the term "tyranny of the majority".

It is a fear that Interactive Democracy may lead to an immoral, brutish system, where the dumb majority lash out in anger and frustration, controlled by all sorts of base reactions and demagogy. Interactive Democracy need not be this. It could be a system that fosters creative ideas and honest debate. It would be ameliorated by Parliament and would allow moral, scientific and expert leadership (like Sir Iain) to argue their points and persuade those that were interested. It would give voice to those with direct, grass roots, experience. In short, it would enhance the debate and provide a system to conclude it.

With fair balances of power we can avoid the tyranny of rulers and the tyranny of mobs.

Policing and Democracy

The Conservative Party has made proposals for having an elected representative to work alongside Police Chiefs. Would Interactive Democracy have the same effect?

In the UK every area has a Police Authority made up of elected councilors and others, who's role is to hold the Chief Police Officer to account. The Home Secretary may also bring power to bear. Interactive Democracy provides additional channels between the public, politicians and police.

Using Interactive Democracy, members of the local community could petition the Police Authority who would then need to address the issue concerned. And the Police Authorities could use ID to ask the community about policing issues. For example, there may be referendums about local licensing laws, the policing of town centers, the proliferation of cctv, etc. etc.

The point is that Interactive Democracy could enhance the communities connection with the police force without radically altering the long standing triumvirate of Police Chief, Police Authority and Home Secretary.

Science V Politics

Professor David Nutt, from the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, has been sacked by Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, for complaining about the way that the cabinet ignored the scientific evidence in coming to their conclusion to re-classify cannabis as a Class B drug. What I find sad about this is that what could have been a useful debate, based on scientific facts, moral judgment and social imperatives has descended into the politicians wielding their power and slapping down the scientific officer who, it seems, feels honour bound to express the evidential truth. It seems to me that democracy has been broken when the powers that be try to hide the truth!

Of course, the scientific evidence isn't the be all and end all of debate. It may even be interpreted in different ways (though I don't think that is the case here). And there are many other factors that effect drugs law: for example the ability of the police to test for driving under the influence; income streams that boost organised crime; the slippery slope towards harder drugs; and the message that smoking cannabis is not good for your health.

Interactive Democracy - or any debate - is best served by the truth. The scientists have a very valuable contribution to make and anything that discourages their honourable efforts, stifles democracy its self.

Media Attitudes

Could it be that different professions attract people with certain attitudes? Does your typical journalist like a good story? Does a typical soldier like the idea of taking risks? Does a typical nurse put others before themselves?

If this is true (on average) maybe the attitudes presented in the media misunderstand other values held dear by large sections of society. I was reminded of this by horrified media reports of comments made by Prince Edward about the risks involved in the Duke of Edinburgh's Award Scheme (here's one from the Mirror). To paraphrase him, he suggested that kids are attracted to the scheme because it allows them the responsibility to manage what can amount to serious risks. (As an ex-mountain rescuer, and mountaineer, who has helped rescue DofE youths, I may have a different attitude to many reporters on this issue.)

It may be obvious that the media could be used to peddle blatant demagogy, or any other type of political bias, but I raise this issue here to point out that Interactive Democracy gives the media more power to subtly influence society by the transmission of their values, in an insidious way, that may be difficult to counter balance. Sure, our existing leaders (political, religious, etc) have obvious opportunities to transmit their values, and the web offers others the opportunity to do the same, but is this enough?... Or does it really matter?... Perhaps we should just accept it and trust that people can make their own decisions.

Paradigm Shift

The application of Information Technology to make democracy more egalitarian, as is described here, may be considered a Paradigm Shift.

Thomas Kuhn, in his 1962 book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions", wrote about how scientific ideas have developed. He questioned the notion expressed by Isaac Newton: "If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of giants." Kuhn argued that scientists operate within a common world view or paradigm. They operate within the established theory, struggling with its anomalies. Then, perhaps quite suddenly, someone looks at the evidence from a new perspective, outside of the current paradigm, and realises that this new view better explains the evidence. For example astronomers struggled for years with the Ptolemaic Earth Centred world view before adopting the Copernicus heliocentric system and Newtonian Mechanics was quite quickly superseded by Quantum Physics.

Could it be that Interactive Democracy would unstick our thinking that may, at present, be locked into party political struggles for power, and allow new ideas to grow, with the support and encouragement of others, into brilliant new paradigms?

Planning Permission

Could Interactive Democracy be used to aid planning permission?

Perhaps a developer would enter a proposal on the ePetition system and then approach the neighbours to seek their support. Could they be bribed? Or would they launch their own campaign against the development, utilising the ePetition system?

The Council would need to assess the technicalities of the development: the impact on parking, the environment, drainage, lighting etc. They should consider the wider public requirements, not just local opinion. But it would seem strange if they ignored strong public sentiment expressed through ID

Similarly, it may be prudent for the Local Council to use the same system for developments of their own.

"Who Runs Britain?"

Robert Peston, the acclaimed BBC Business Editor, writes in his book "Who Runs Britain?"

"... it would be to ignore all history to presume that the super-rich, or their trust-fund children, or their plutocratic children's children won't endeavour to convert a fraction of their fortunes into control of the media, sponsorship of lobby groups or seats in Parliament. Their big financial boots will become big political boots. It is irrelevant whether you think that they will do ill or good with their new political power. The accumulation of vast wealth by a growing class of super-rich - who owe no allegiance to any state - is a regressive trend for the distribution of power. It will taint governance and distort democracy."

Interactive Democracy helps counter balance the problem of economic power becoming political power: 1 issue/1 person/1 vote dissipates political power amongst the electorate, making it much more difficult for money to surreptitiously influence policy; and, at the point of casting their vote, the electorate will be presented with a list of the pros and cons of each argument, generated by MPs and citizens, undermining the influence of the media. I think it would be sensible to have laws against lying, too. (For more please see this post.)

Please click here for Robert Peston's blog.

The Trojan Horse Strategy

Nick Griffin of the BNP (British National Party) is often accused of hiding his parties real views behind a cloak of more respectable language, to garner votes that will lead them into power. Once there, they will be in a position to implement other, more radical, policies.

Is this type of Trojan Horse Strategy carried out by other political parties?

Interactive Democracy provides a safeguard against any party using such maneuvering.

Interactive Democracy for Organisations

The ePetition aspect of Interactive Democracy could be usefully employed for generating suggestions and measuring support for them in areas other than politics. For example, the military could use this system to get feedback and ideas from personnel at every level. Political parties, unions, or any other organisation may also like to take advantage of this aspect of the system.

There could be a small charge for organisations to use the Interactive Democracy infrastructure, but the content generated would remain confidential, open to its members or perhaps only to senior management (the military would need to be especially careful about security).

How would it work?

An organisation would supply a database of approved members who could then use standard security settings to access private areas of the ID site. The organisation may decide in advance if the system is to allow anonymity, or not.

Truth and Balance in the Media

It is a concern that the media can skew the political debate with dishonest or unbalanced output: Truth and balance are essential ingredients for democracy and are especially important for Interactive Democracy (ID).

The Libel Laws are sometimes employed by individuals against the media, but Truth, in the type of Interactive political debate I am advocating, may have no champion to defend her. I suggest that the law should be tightened in this matter by appointing a Truth Commission, with legal powers, to investigate complaints against the media and politicians.

It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to ensure entirely balanced reporting as media pundits have their own opinions to express and it is impossible to present every shade of opinion in any one output. The wide diversity of media types (Print, TV, Radio, Internet) will help. But it is important to ensure that media power does not lie with a small oligarchy: the Monopolies Commission should always be keeping an eye on the large media companies.

Another way of ensuring balance is for the ID system to list arguments for and against each proposal. These should be generated by MPs and, separately, by the public adding their comments to the site. It would not be difficult to do using tools developed for the Internet. The advantage of this system would be its accessibility on the user interface that is used to cast your vote. It thus supercedes media generated opinion by its immediacy, authority and egalitarianism.

"Who Runs Britain?"

In " Who Runs Britain?" Robert Peston's writes:

"We've witnessed in the past decade the way that all the main political parties have been prepared to grant access and influence to those with the wherewithal to fund their operations. Even with reform of the system of funding political parties, the wealthy will always find a way to buy political power - whether through the direct sponsorship of politicians and parties, or through the acquisition of media businesses, or through the financing of think tanks. To put it another way, the voices of the superwealthy are heard by politicians well above the babble of the crowd."

In the ID system I would expect the superwealthy to continue to use money to exert their influence, perhaps by "buying" politicians, perhaps through manipulating the media and also through advertising spend. Ultimately, however, Interactive Democracy allows us individual voters to express our power on each issue, as it arises, and the superwealthy influencers must persuade you and me.

Contageous Distrust

Consider the situation: the party in government breaks their election manifesto pledge, or they are caught lying, or they display profound incompetence, or immorality. You want to punish them; to change the government. Yet the opposition parties supported some of those decisions and they appear, in many obvious ways, both superficial and profound, to be cut from the same cloth.

The general election comes around and previous misdemeanours are obscured by argument, rhetoric and time. The incumbent is re-elected.

So, every Political Party sees that they may judge what they can get away with, depending on the balance of their own political capital, good deeds versus bad, the imminence of the next election and on the weakness of an all too similar opposition. In short they see that they can get away with it.

Thus the public consider every party, and all politicians, with a degree of scepticism.

Interactive Democracy allows the public to act in opposition to the government, powerfully and immediately. They act as political outsiders, unsullied by cosy relationships; foreigners in the Westminster Village. This, in its self, introduces a strong discipline that is lacking in today's politics.

Morality, Democracy, Leadership

The question is "Are the majority more or less moral than the ruling elite?"

In 1887 Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, wrote "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." But why should this be so? Is it that leaders have to make tough choices that can always be perceived by some to be immoral? Tough choices lead to hardened hearts! Or is it that our leaders are sustained by large egos that blind them of empathy for the "little man"?

We could assume that the majority of common folk are averagely moral. Interactive Democracy gives them power. Could it be the case that they could countermand the immoral tendencies of despots yet be enriched by the teachings of greater folk, thus improving the moral sentiment of the nation? History suggests otherwise (Hitler's Germany, Israel's democracy).

I think the best we can say is that the majority are neither more nor less moral than rulers.

For more on how situations lead to brutal behaviour, please see "The Lucifer Effect".

Self Interest

Would self interest be the dominant ethic when voting on issues within Interactive Democracy?

Though I don't doubt that this may be the core morality of some, I suspect the vast majority have some degree of empathy for others and aspire to live by the Golden Rule, which is at the core of most teachings about morality:

"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others... As you yourself desire standing, then help others achieve it; as you yourself desire success, then help others attain it." Confucius, c500BCE.

"So in everything, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the law and the prophets." Jesus, c30CE.

"Hurt no one, so that no one may hurt you." Muhammad, c630CE.

"The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever possible, as they want to be done by." Karl Popper, 1945CE.

And for many there is a voice of conscience, too. As Adam Smith wrote in his Theory of the Moral Sentiments (1759), "the man within the breast, the great judge and arbiter..." provides "the desire of possessing those qualities, and performing those actions, which we love and admire in other people; and in the dread of possessing those qualities, and performing those actions, which we hate and despise in other people."

The danger faced by any national democracy is that people feel small and impersonal in comparison to the scale of it, and they risk losing their empathy for other faceless souls, lost in the crowd. This is where leadership must come in. Especially leadership by those who can tell of their direct experiences of the topic to hand and how those issues have effected them; leaders who give political issues a human face.

Common Ground

Interactive Democracy has much common ground with Parliamentary Democracy, it builds on what we've got:

• The right to vote
• Freedom of speech
• Freedom of the press
• The need for debate
• The importance of facts
• Inclusiveness
• Fairness
• A balance of power
• The need for Government
• The need for a Prime Minister and a Cabinet
• The need for a democratically elected Parliament
• The Judiciary
• Law and Order
• Security
• Human Rights

Relativism

Darius, King of Persia, c500BC, was reported to have asked the Greeks at his court if they would eat the bodies of their ancestors, as the Callatiaens did. They were aghast. He then asked the Callatiaens if they would burn their ancestors, as was the custom in Greece. They were horrified.

Thus he showed there is no wrong or right answer. The poet Pindar wrote "Custom is king of all".

"One man's meat is another's poison" is the core of relativism. Like Darius, two and a half thousand years ago, our system of government must integrate the perspectives of millions of very different people in a widely multi-cultural society. Back then, the king held the power and his word became law. Today, the power rests with Parliament. It could just as well reside with the majority of constituents, using Interactive Democracy and widespread debate to integrate all their perspectives into a national view.

Super Capitalism - The battle for democracy in an age of big business.

In his book "Supercapitalism", Robert Reich writes

"Democracy means more than a process of free and fair elections. Democracy, in my view, is a system for accomplishing what can only be achieved by citizens - to determine the rules of the game whose outcomes express the common
good.

"... supercapitalism has spilled over into politics. The money... companies are pouring into Washington and every other major capitol gets in the way.... The challenge for us citizens is to stop them from setting the rules."

Interactive Democracy pulls political power away from those who secretly and insidiously buy political power, and gives it back to voters. Instead, the supercapitalists have to persuade us by the merit of their arguments.

Professor Robert Reich, University of California, Berkeley, was America's 22nd Secretary of Labour. Please click here for his blog.

Freedom For Sale and Democracy Kills

In this Guardian Book Review, Martin Woollacot comments:

"It is a sign of these worrying times that Humphrey Hawkesley and John Kampfner, using the insights and experiences gained from much travel and reporting abroad, should have simultaneously set themselves the task of charting what has gone wrong. These two good journalists adopt similar methods and come to a similar conclusion, which is that an alliance between politicians and the better-off is, in almost every country, undermining democracy by limiting rights and excluding the poor."

(Emphasis, mine.)

Interactive Democracy is a step back towards one person/one vote and the importance of good quality debate, rather than politics fuelled by the overbearing power of money.

Democracy Kills

In his book "Democracy Kills - What's good about having the vote?", Humphrey Hawksley comments on what is required to get a functioning democracy:

"Firstly, leadership..."
"Second... The really tough part is building the institutions. There needs to be a free and responsible press; uncorrupt and efficient public services; an independent judiciary that closes cases and makes decisions; a disciplined police and military; a strong election commission; a banking authority; and education, health and transport organisations, all of which can be held to account."

Humphrey, a respected BBC foreign correspondent, writes of his experiences abroad and of the struggle to bring democracy to the less developed regions of the world. However, the above quote is a reminder of what we have and the foundations that Interactive Democracy can build upon.

Shareholders Bill of Rights

The financial crisis has inspired American investors to call for more rights for shareholders. In particular they want voting rights for nominations to the Board and their pay. This is something that an Interactive Democracy infrastructure could facilitate. Please click here for their other suggestions.

Conference 365

Political parties may consider using the Interactive Democracy infrastructure for internal debates and ballots which would be hidden from none members. It would be like running a conference 365 days a year, 24/7.
In the same way, businesses, unions, civil servants, pressure groups or any other organisation may also use the ID system, which should be considered part of the national infrastructure in the same way as the roads or rail system. There could be a small charge for access.

Journalistic License

Last Sunday, Andrew Marr's guest, Telegraph journalist Andrew Pierce, claimed his description of Neil Kinnock falling "headfirst" into the sea on Brighton's beach, was journalistic license. It was certainly an off the cuff remark, but what is journalistic license and how often is it used?

Colourful writing undoubtedly enhances a story, conjuring up strong images for our entertainment, but how does that marry with the facts of the matter? Does it tarnish the truth? Can we trust what we read?

This last question has an enormous impact on democracy. As does The Sun's claim to switch its support to the Conservatives today.

Interactive Democracy (ID) may employ various strategies for counteracting this:

1. The ID Internet interface should allow voters to list the plus, minus and interesting points for each proposal, as an interactive document, supervised by the web master. More on this here.


2. There could be a legal requirement for the news media and politicians to tell the truth, using a system similar to the Advertising Standards Authority. More on this here.

Party Power

The size of political parties and pressure groups gives them more power in Interactive Democracy, should the leadership be able to persuade their members to vote in unison. This may be accomplished quite powerfully by emailing their members to advise/persuade them on how to vote.

Is this a bad thing?

I don't think so. Party leaders have little real power over how their members vote, except by persuasion. (Votes are cast in secret, so the leadership should never know how individual members are voting.)

However, this poses a potential problem for the introduction of Interactive Democracy because those parties with smaller numbers of members, but many seats in the House of Commons, may use their political power to oppose it. That is to say, they may prefer to hold on to power rather than make democracy more democratic!

(The above graph is shown here, in an article about BNP membership.)

Chanting "This is what democracy looks like"

On BBC's Panorama programme about policing protests there was a brief scene showing someone chanting "This is what democracy looks like". A quick search reveals the lyrics to this song by Sara Marlow (published here). It reveals an attitude, a confrontation and a power struggle in a better way than I can express:

"Now we are raging on the front lines, 50 000 strong this time

We've got a world to win

Struggled our whole lives against this

It's the fight we wouldn't dream of missing

So get off your seat and hit the streets, it's time to begin

This is what democracy looks like

This is what democracy looks like

Now they hide behind their barricades, uniforms and pepper spray

We know we got them scared

They hide behind the walls they made, but no fence can keep away our anger

And by any means we're going to make them hear us today

This is what democracy looks like

We're going to show them what democracy feels like

If you'd open up your eyes, you'd see why we're fighting

But you hide behind your lies, we're going to have to make you listen

Now IMF and WTO, you're going to see us everywhere you go

This is a promise we've made

SAPs and FTAA, we're not going to live that way

You can **** your fence, your tear gas and your pepper spray

Cause they're not what democracy looks like

We're going to show you what democracy looks like

If you'd open up your eyes, you'd see why we're fighting

But you hide behind your lies, we're going to have to make you listen

Now we're energised, electrified, found our power sis-by-side

So-so-solidarite dans la rue

Turtle kids and working class, together we can kick their asses

When we're fighting unified, there's no way we can lose

This is what democracy looks like

This is what democracy feels like

We're going to show them what democracy looks like

This is what democracy feels like"

This is what democracy looks like?

There's got to be a better way

Let's get Interactive Democracy today!

You can visit Sara Marlow's site here.

The Cost of Protests

According to this BBC report the week-long climate camp near Kingsnorth Power Station cost Kent Police about £5.9million pounds! 100 arrests were made and 29 complaints received!

I don't know if Interactive Democracy (ID) would make such protests irrelevant, and I would hate to see the right to lawful protest hindered in any way, but if those police resources were spent tackling burglaries or terrorism, I'd be happy. What ID would do is give protesters a legitimate democratic channel for pushing change, perhaps acting as a pressure release valve and preventing this sort of protest.

Scotland's Illegal Immigrant

While opposition politicians are clamouring for the resignation of Baroness Scotland it seems she is to keep her job and pay the £5000 fine for employing an illegal immigrant.

Chris Huhne declared "Law makers should not be law breakers" - well none of us should, but if we don't know what the law is, can we really be held accountable?

The coverage of this case is the first time I've heard that it is an employers duty to check the passport of prospective employees and that a National Insurance number is not sufficient evidence of a right to work. I never imagined that it would be my legal requirement to demand to see the passport of a window cleaner or gardener (Is it?). Yet it is a common tenant of law that "ignorance is no defence". Not that that defence would be feasible in Lady Scotland's case, as she was partly responsible for the creation of this very same law.

Perhaps it is the role of the police to apply the law with common sense; perhaps it is the role of the Judge to consider mitigating circumstances so that hard laws are implemented with wide consideration. That may work well. However, my objective in raising this here is to point out that if we were all involved in the development of laws through the Interactive Democracy system, then awareness of the issues, and of our responsibilities, would be so much greater amongst the population as a whole.

More here from the Guardian online.

Undermining Foreign Policy

Would discontented voters undermine government initiatives, especially foreign policy, by demanding changes through the Interactive Democracy (ID) process? Sure, people can protest today, but it may be difficult for foreign powers to easily understand the extent of British public opinion. Interactive Democracy votes are counted and can be found easily, on the web. Changes in the votes may be monitored as events unfold and may strengthen our enemies resolve!

On the other hand, supportive votes may have the opposite effect.

Ego Inertia

Those that seek to persuade others (salesmen) get locked into their point of view. This isn't just because they have a whole pile of products to sell, which have a cost that needs to be recovered, but because we would prefer that our psychological commitment to a point of view were not for nought. The Id (ego) wants us to be right.

In politics ideas are peddled with great effort and politicians seldom want to be perceived as being wrong. There is a political cost to their ideas, measured in terms of credibility. This means that controversial points of view may not be raised as the associated risks to credibility and ego are too great.

Interactive Democracy allows the general public to push controversial ideas forward. They have little to lose in terms of political credibility. Politicians can at first watch the debate from the sidelines without committing to one side or the other, only later becoming involved in Parliamentary debate. This dynamic, very different from today's political system, may lead to more creativity and diversity in the range of public policies from which we may choose.

Lies

Free and fair debate is crucial to any type of effective democracy. Lies corrupt the very essence of this ideal and I think we should be considering how to use the law to combat lies in public life.

What is a lie? It is a statement, presented as fact, that is unsupported by evidence.

An un-truth is not a lie if the person communicating it believes it to be true and has evidence which in fact, turns out to be wrong. Plato wrote about this in Theaetetus (360BCE) and it is known to philosophers as the Tripartite Theory of Knowledge.

Could the law be used to punish liers? Or is the scale of the problem just too vast?

I don't think we should be punitive about off the cuff remarks, which, due to the sloppy nature of our spoken language, can cause misrepresentation. But perhaps we should be more demanding of prepared statements made by individuals in positions of authority and by organisations.

It may also be useful to split the issue into three areas:

1. Politicians and public servants
2. The Media
3. The Internet

It seems to me logical that we should be stringent about the truth of statements prepared by politicians and public servants. This would include prepared statements made in the House of Commons or to the media and simple verbal statements of fact (Did you do that? Yes or No.)

We should also be careful about the power of the media to corrupt debate with falsehoods. This does not mean that they will necessarily have to reveal their anonymous sources, who may have a secret truth that it is in the public interest to reveal. But it does mean that they may have to qualify their statements with "According to several sources..."etc.

The Internet is perhaps the thorniest problem because individuals can so easily publish whatever they want and some of the written content may be very conversational in tone. It is also an international media and it may be unclear where an author resides and, therefore, which jurisdiction appertains. However, British organisations and authority figures could easily be held to account for their online communication.

Interestingly, the ease with which the Internet's wide range of sources can be searched is perhaps one of its saving graces, as evidence can be gathered quickly, using a search engine, that proves or disproves suspect statements. And news media organisations, publishing on the Internet, who are threatened by legal proceedings against their dishonest statements, will become more trusted sources of information than"Joe Blogs".

How would such a system work?

Perhaps it requires an "Authority" like the Advertising Standards Agency, who could take note of complaints, decide if a case is to be answered, demand a public apology and a re-statement of the culprits position and, if necessary, prepare a case for the civil courts. I'd hope that few cases were brought, but the deterrent would be strong.

Meritocracy

Some would argue that the Party Political system of democracy that we have here today is a meritocracy: the best party members are promoted by their peers to become candidates, Members of Parliament, Members of Cabinet or even the Prime Minister. Even though budding Machiavellis, lady luck and human bias conspire to distort the ideal of meritocracy, Interactive Democracy (ID) does not prevent this time honoured process of appointing politicians. To this meritocracy of people, ID adds a meritocracy of ideas. Each one reviewed by the populace and parliament, promoted or declined, one at a time.

Technocrats

Many decisions in society require detailed knowledge and expertise and must be done by technocrats of one form or another. Consider the NICE committee that advises the NHS on the validity of new drugs (amongst many other things). Often senior doctors, they make decisions after analysing the clinical evidence and in light of the affordability of the treatment, using sophisticated metrics to compare the likelihood of providing quality of life years for patients. They make tough calls that can result in refusing patients with terminal illnesses the treatment that they need, because that money could be better spent elsewhere. The plight of these patients may tug at our heart strings.

Interactive Democracy may be used by campaigners demanding drugs that NICE have refused. They may garner much support through emotional appeals that ignore the hard hearted rational of the technocrats. Is this a bad thing?

In a democracy this should be a debate worth having. It may alter the rules that the technocrats employ to make their case by case decisions. But Interactive Democracy can not replace them; they are still an essential part of society. I don't believe that the public, through ID, could consider such complex decisions and vote frequently upon them.

Pressure Groups

Recently I heard one pundit on the BBC comment that No.10s ePetition system was a bit of an own goal, as it was dominated by pressure groups. I don't see this as a bad thing. After all, political party members can use it too. As can labour unions, charities, rail customers, cancer victims, super heroes or newspaper campaigns, to name but a few. Surely the essence of democracy is expressing your opinion to enhance the debate.

Sure, the ePetition system is more open to abuse than the proposed Interactive Democracy system, by people using aliases to boost the numbers of signatures (an address is required, but is it checked?). But I applaud No.10 for providing this service. It's an experiment that Interactive Democracy can learn from.

Bristol Vote on Graffiti

Bristol, the home city of Bansky, the elusive and acclaimed artist, is allowing its residents to vote on the removal of graffiti. This democratic process will be a stand against crime for some and a vote for freedom for others.

Shouldn't property owners have the first and final say on graffiti on their buildings? But assuming that that hurdle is cleared, perhaps because the wall is publicly owned, there are other complications. As each piece of graffiti may have its own merits, not just because of its creative content but in relation to the surface it was painted on, whether it is a bland concrete fence or Georgian facade, surely votes should be cast on each work - an administrative nightmare for a conventional ballot. Interactive Democracy could help streamline this, especially if a photo file was attached to each ballot. It could also automatically favour votes by residents of the area, the immediate postcode, ahead of the wider population of the city, who may only be given half a vote each!?

More from The Guardian here.

Making the Media Interactive

I hope that the media, especially the press, radio and TV news, would see the merit of publishing details of ePetitions and Public Ballots. These could include new ePetitions, the top 10 by number of signatures and all upcoming Public Ballots. I think it would add immeasurably to the success of Interactive Democracy and to the content of their services. It may even attract more readers, listeners and viewers and therefore more advertisers.

This will provide endless topics for their opinion leaders and political analysts.

Perhaps because of political bias, the media may not agree with this. In which case the government may consider to wield its power and legislate that news media must publish or broadcast these details. Or they may demand that it is only mandatory for the BBC.

You Don't Have To Be An Expert To Start A Petition

Inevitably, Interactive Democracy will be inundated by half baked ideas from amateurs. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because off-the-wall suggestions may inspire others to write their own, better informed, Petitions. In this way the ePetition system may act like an enormous brainstorming system. (One of the rules of brainstorming is that any idea should be recorded without criticism, as it may inspire other, better ideas.)

Crazy ideas are unlikely to garner sufficient support to be put before parliament, but even if they were, our elected politicians must debate them, look at the counter arguments and associated issues, and form realistic and workable choices to put before voters.

Votes from Abroad

Nationals who are working or living abroad will still be able to vote using an Internet based Interactive Democracy (ID) system in the same way that we can access our Internet bank accounts. Perhaps a more difficult challenge would be to ensure that military personnel on active service have sufficient access to the Internet.

Several aspects of the system will help to facilitate votes even though access to the voting system may be infrequent:

• Votes may be cast well before the ballot ends, perhaps months in advance
• Liquid Democracy can be used to delegate votes on certain subjects to respected individuals
• You may allow your spouse or a trusted friend to access your ID account (by giving them your user name and password) and cast the vote on your behalf. Perhaps you would direct them by telephone.

The ID system would simplify the administration of General, EU and Council Elections for those working abroad and could provide substantial cost savings compared to the present system.

Perceptual Contrast

Whenever there is a choice between two solutions we should be aware of the Perceptual Contrast Effect. Humans automatically compare similar things and find it very difficult to compare those choices with a third, separate standard.

This may be used by any sales person to steer a decision in the "right" direction. It could be used by Members of Parliament to bias the outcome of a referendum if they offered an obviously contentious option instead of a more moderate alternative to a proposal that they favoured.

In the Interactive Democracy system, the electorate may want to wield their power against the politicians responsible for such deception.

Halos and Horns

The Halo Effect describes how we assume that people who are successful in one field may be successful in another. It may manifest itself in many ways and encourages us to support our leaders.

The Horns effect may be considered as the opposite. We dismiss the opinions of those we don't respect.

Neither the Halo or Horns effects may be valid as success or failure in one area does not mean that an individual will perform well or poorly on a different issue. So maybe we should be more skeptical of our leaders and more open to ideas from the average person. Interactive Democracy facilitates this point of view.

Cabinet's Commitment

It is understood that the Cabinet has specific roles:

• Share information about government departments and the progress of policies
• Coordinate between departments
• Resolve conflicts of policy
• Confirm government policy

Individual freedom of expression is required for effective debate but cabinet members are expected to present a united front to the outside world.

The Prime Minister (PM) has sole responsibility for appointing cabinet members and (s)he may expect their loyalty. The PM has the authority to set the agenda and chair cabinet meetings.

With Interactive Democracy I would expect the cabinet system to continue to exist in its present form. However, the agenda may be influenced by the demands of the public, expressed through Interactive Democracy, and ministers may have to take into account a much more powerful electorate.

The PM's Office

The PMs office is split into 4 departments:

• Private Office
• Political Office
• Press Office
• Policy Directorate

Under the Interactive Democracy (ID) system I would expect that this structure would continue. Much of the governments agenda would be set through the ID system and I would imagine that the Political Office and the Policy Directorate would work closely together to encourage votes from party members, in order to create a majority that would push the desired policies through the public ID system. Us voters would decide if we liked them or not.

Prime Minister's Questions - PMQs

Would it be useful to allow PMQs from the public?

Perhaps Interactive Democracy (ID) could be used for this. Perhaps the 10 questions with the most votes would have to be answered by the PM in the House of Commons and on the No.10 web site.

Or would this absorb too much of the Prime Minister's time?

Public PMQs may evolve once the ID system is in place.

Presidential Prime Ministers

In the past we have had Prime Ministers with many different styles of leadership; some have been criticised for surrounding themselves with "yes men" and steamrollering their colleagues. By appointing loyal and grateful politicians to cabinet positions, PMs can reinforce their own power, undermine collective cabinet government and become more presidential.

Interactive Democracy introduces a different power balance. This power is much more immediate than in a Parliamentary Democracy that is dominated by infrequent General Elections and it can be wielded precisely on specific issues. At any time the electorate will be able to call for a change of government, sack individual ministers or call for a change of government policy. This counter balances presidential power.

The ID system may be less appealing to egotistical Prime Ministers who want to exert their will, because much of Parliamentary business will be driven by voters. However, the public can still have a Presidential PM, if that is what the majority wants: they can vote in a Presidential figure and allow him or her to set the agenda.

Counterbalancing the Prime Minister's Powers

The Prime Minister has the power to

1. Appoint ministers
2. Chair cabinet meetings
3. Set the agenda
4. Appoint senior civil servants
5. Award peerages
6. Decide when to call a general election
   

I'd expect most of those powers to continue. However, the governments agenda would in part be set by the demands made by the public through the ID system and partly by national and world events. And without a House of Lords, peerages will not have the same relevance.

With ID the PM would need to keep a watchful eye on public opinion while making decisions because a majority could, in theory, countermand his/her decisions and ultimately call for a general election or the sacking of ministers and senior civil servants. These sanctions would likely only be employed in extremis, but their existence would be an influence on No.10's operations, without voters continuously meddling in the day to day operation of government.

Law Lords

Could Interactive Democracy (ID) take over the role of the Law Lords?

There are 12 Law Lords who used to sit in the House of Lords (but have now moved) and are the highest court of appeal in the land - the supreme court of appeal. They are experienced senior judges and have a wealth of legal experience.

Even if ID eliminated the need for a separate House of Lords (counter balancing the power of The Commons and saving £60m a year), I would expect a continued requirement for the Law Lords to operate the Supreme Court of Appeal.

Technology Savy Demographics

Interactive Democracy has an inbuilt bias for those with Internet connections and IT skills. Information Technology facilitates cost effective voting but it is essential that everyone has reasonable access to both the equipment and training needed to make ID work. I suspect that that point has almost come, given the access to public libraries that we can all enjoy, each with an Internet facility. Undoubtedly this technology favours those who are familiar with it. However, I make no apology for the natural bias ID offers to those demographics that own a computer and know how to use it. There has always been this type of bias in democracy, a bias for those that could read in the early 20th century, those that owned a wireless in the 1930s or a TV set in the 1960s. Always a bias for those with the mobility and the time to get to a polling station.

Citizen Journalists

As we have seen after the Iranian general election, anyone with a video camera and an Internet connection can air footage that can effect political debate. Any blogger can express their opinion. However, this information, for all its impact, may not be verified as a report from the best journalists would. Reports may actually be corrupt interpretations or may even be orchestrated by those with hidden agendas.

I don't believe that such concerns are a significant problem for Interactive Democracy, which balances public opinion with Parliamentary expertise and Bloggers with Professional Journalists.

It could be argued that a deluge of information from citizen journalists may add diversity to the debate and thus enhance it. Even though no one person could view every report, a large number of individuals may collectively absorb the information and act accordingly, the Interactive Democracy system collating their opinions.

Donations to MPs

Donations made to MPs, exceeding £1000, must be declared, but there is always the worry that money can "buy" policy. Interactive Democracy may make such corruption meaningless as the public have the final vote on new laws.

Two Job MPs

It has long been the case that MPs have been able to have two jobs and lucrative sources of second income, sometimes associated with their Parliamentary responsibilities. One of our best loved leaders, Sir Winston Churchill, wrote several successful books that provided him with extra cash.

It may be argued that MPs' second jobs anchor them in the "real world", forming a connection to the general public that can so easily be lost in the Westminster Village. For example, Sir Paul Beresford has continued to practice as a dentist. The counter argument is that MPs should really be concentrating on politics and their Parliamentary responsibilities, not using their position to make more dosh as nonexecutive directors and the like.

Interactive Democracy feeds everyones' real life experience into the political mix. Every type of democracy needs politicians to be professional and responsible law makers, focused on their jobs as Parliamentarians.

For an Independent article about MPs' second jobs please click here.

MPs Attendance

It is important for Interactive Democracy (indeed any democracy) that MPs attend debates and ballots - that's their job. Perhaps they should be payed for attendance? Or perhaps a record of attendance should be published on the web?

But Cabinet Ministers are also MPs and if they attended every session in Parliament, who would govern the country?

Lords that Govern

Peter Mandelson, among others, have positions in government, not through election but by appointment. They are Lords that govern.

George Bernard Shaw said, "Democracy is a form of government that substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few." Yet the "many" aren't as incompetent or ill informed as in Shaw's day. Today we are far better educated and have access to a wide range of sources of information and opinions. Interactive Democracy is a form of government that substitutes the will of the educated majority for the appointment of the corrupt few.

John Gardner

"The citizen can bring our political and governmental institutions back to life, make them responsive and accountable, and keep them honest. No one else can." John Gardner, founder of Common Cause.

Noam Chomsky

"States are not moral agents, people are, and can impose moral standards on powerful institutions." Noam Chomsky.

Interactive Democracy gives people the power to impose those moral standards.

Time Limits

The No.10 ePetition system allows you to select how long you would like your petition to run, up to a maximum of 1 year. The Interactive Democracy system requires no such time limits as whichever petition has the most support goes before Parliament. This has the advantage that ideas can hang around long enough so that they may reach a tipping point where support suddenly blooms; they may quite suddenly have their day as new and unpredicted events focus public interest.

Interactive Democracy and Money Bills

The Parliament Bill of 1911 replaced the Lords' power of veto with the ability to delay legislation for up to two years. It also removed their power over money bills - those associated with taxation.

Should Interactive Democracy allow the majority to vote on money bills?

It seems to me that an important aspect of democracy is a balance of power, so that one faction doesn't become too self possessed. Power corrupts! I think the population could handle Money Bills and should be allowed to vote on them. This may help to prevent the sort of debacle that occurred with the proposed 10% tax rate.

Using the ID system we could all decide if Money Bills should be open to Interactive voting, passing Parliament Bills of our own to curtail our own collective power. There may be good reason to do this, if the majority vote for their personal financial benefit without regard for the wider picture.

John F Kennedy

"We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people." John F Kennedy

Never The Twain Shall Meet

"The government is merely a servant -- merely a temporary servant; it cannot be its prerogative to determine what is right and what is wrong, and decide who is a patriot and who isn't. Its function is to obey orders, not originate them." Mark Twain.

This ideal, this myth, is such a part of our collective subconscious that many accept without question the concept of government as servant of the people. Yet in today's Parliamentary Democracy we elect rulers who have no way of knowing what the will of the majority is. No way of taking orders. They sometimes, but not always, pursue their manifesto commitments. They sometimes, but not always, try to represent their constituents. MPs sometimes, but not always, follow their own consciences. They more often vote in accordance with the Whips. Interactive Democracy is closer to Twain's ideal.

Thomas Jefferson

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

Similarly, we should recognise that we are better educated and informed than people 50 or 100 years ago; communication facilities have improved many times over; we are better educated. Interactive Democracy doesn't advocate the destruction of democracy as we know it today, but hopes to build on it with new technology that will empower, enable and enhance.

Here's more on Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of America. (Earlier, as minister to France, he expressed sympathy for the French Revolution, not knowing into what depravity it would sink.)

Flint Sparks Debate

Ms Flint resigned from the cabinet a day after she pledged her loyalty to it in a TV interview.

On breakfast TV she suggested that women should be better represented in politics. Interactive Democracy can't guarantee that there would be more female politicians, but does guarantee that every women can contribute their ideas and votes, issue by issue.

Click here for more.

Baby P, Baby Politics

The press, and then the politicians, vilified social workers for their failure to defend Baby P. It seemed as if public anger at this tragic death was focused away from the criminal(s) who perpetrated this barbarous, bullying outrage and instead attacked the social workers without really getting to grips with the real dilemma: as a society, do we take children from their families on the basis of inconclusive evidence, possibly ripping innocent families apart and psychologically damaging them, or do we leave children in situations where we suspect, but cannot prove, they are at risk?

There are other questions here. When the public are angered, can there be a rational and balanced debate that may employ Interactive Democracy to improve things? Do vitriolic campaigns by the media skew our thinking even more when we feel outraged? Is it the role of politicians to pander to public opinion or to act to check and balance public passions? Are scapegoats inevitable?

In my opinion the Interactive Democracy system should benefit from politicians debating issues and from detailed studies. This may be a slow process... time is a great healer and the ID system should be slow enough to allow passions to give way to rationalisation.

Ultimately, after due consideration, if a referendum is required, it may be wise for parliament to present widely disparate alternative choices as a way of "playing devils advocate" and improving the quality of the public debate.

The Blame Game

The blame game seems to be endemic in our society. We blame politicians, bankers, social workers. Sometimes even victims of crime for not taking adequate precautions. Following trends set in the USA, litigation is on the increase. Blaming the government for pretty much everything has long been the norm.

Interactive Democracy means that everyone must take more responsibility for public life. To use the cliche, with power comes responsibility.

Will a continuing willingness to blame the government perpetuate demand after demand for dissolution of the government in the Interactive Democracy system? If it did, this could seriously hamper social progress, like adding grit instead of oil to a machine. However, there is hope that this wouldn't be the case: it always amazes me that out of the bickering, Yaa-Boo Parliament the opposition rally behind the government on issues of national defence and foreign policy. In a similar way I would hope that they would support the smooth running of Interactive Democracy rather than use it to agitate for the demise of the government. Looking to their own future as a government they would be wise to set the right president.

57% Choose Not to Participate in Democracy

According to this Hansard Report, 57% of people may choose not to participate in Democracy, 40% of them blaming lack of time as the reason.

Interactive Democracy, with a web, text or phone based IT infrastructure, makes it very quick and easy to participate. It empowers and motivates voters. But it can also make democracy very effective at a local level (assuming postcodes are used to identify a voters location). For example, if you want more bin collections you can vote for it; if you want a new speed limit on your street, you can vote for it; if you want a salt bin at the top of the hill, you can vote for it. You can even knock on your neighbours doors and encourage them to vote for your petition. This isn't the Ya-Boo politics that may alienate some, but the practical local policies that can make a meaningful difference to communities, and it may breed renewed interest and involvement in National or international politics.

5 Steps to a Digital Britain

This report about eDemocracy, by Andy Williamson of the Hansard Society, identifies 5 steps for a Digital Britain. Please click on the link to read all about them.

It seems to me that much of what is suggested (access, information literacy and content) will develop over time, but it is a concern that a digital divide could disenfranchise part of the population from the Interactive Democracy model. Ease of access to the ePetition and voting systems is important, but it is also worth remembering that a trip to the local library, where Internet access is usually free, is hardly more difficult than a trip to a polling station. And in my experience, librarians are usually very helpful when it comes to getting on-line. I don't believe we need to wait until everyone has personal Internet access before implementing Interactive Democracy.

Also, giving people power is, in its self, motivating. Just look at all the management stuff on empowerment!

Handy Hansard

Hansard is the printed transcription of Parliamentary debates. You can find it here.

Mandate, Trustee or Delegate?

In 1774 Edmund Burke explained to his constituents that, should they vote him into the House of Commons, he would act as a trustee of their faith in accordance with his own conscience. He asked them to trust him to do the right thing: The Trustee Model.

This is in contrast to the notion that an MP is a delegate of his constituents, voicing their concerns and voting in a way (s)he believes the majority of the constituents would want. This is sometimes know as The Delegate Model.

Alternatively, if an MP believes that they won their seat because they belong to the party with the winning Manifesto they may act to bring those election pledges into being: The Mandate Model.

Interactive Democracy recognises that MPs are torn between conscience, party and constituents on some issues. Yet they have no simple mechanism for measuring the will of the majority of their constituents and must make assumptions about what they want. ID provides that mechanism and at the same time frees MPs to debate and persuade as their party and conscience dictate.

The Speaker

The Speaker of the House of Commons is appointed by a ballot of its members and is required to resign from their political party and become politically impartial. Speakers only cast their votes in the event of a tie and then they are guided by the president set by earlier incumbents to that office. Despite the claims in this document from http://www.parliament.co.uk/, if the speaker doesn't take part in debates, how are their own constituents represented?

Interactive Democracy side steps this issue by allowing constituents to represent themselves. Instead, Parliamentarians will be expected to debate bills, form a government and hold it to task as their conscience dictates. I'd expect the Speaker's role and responsibilities to continue but some may consider that a speaker could be appointed from outside of the House, so long as they acted within tight rules and regulations, or be dismissed by a vote of no-confidence. This would allow all MPs to act in the role they were appointed for by the public.

Demagogy

Demagogy is a strategy for gaining political power by appealing to prejudices and fears. Would this become prevalent in Interactive Democracy?

I'm sure it would, but I believe that the vast majority of British people would not be swayed by such crassness anymore than our politicians are today. After all, MPs need the support of the population if they are to stay in office.

It is the role of moral leaders everywhere to oppose base instinct and false logic, and to build empathy. There are many people within our society, leaders in positions of authority, who are well positioned to maintain our moral compass. Interactive Democracy gives them another tool to oppose prejudice and fear.

Whose Interests do MPs Represent?

In a BBC commissioned poll by Ipsos MORI the public showed little belief that MPs represent constituents. (Click here for the article.) In four polls taken between 1994 and 2009 no more than 10% believed that MPs represented us and it's worse now. Typically 50% thought that they represented themselves and 20 to 30% thought that they represented their party!

Is this what you call representative democracy?

Supervision of Parliament

Nearly 50% of people believe that half or more of MPs are corrupt according to a BBC/MORI poll (June 2009, in light of The Telegraph's expose of MPs expense claims). You can see the BBC report here. "It also points to strong support among the British public for taking away Parliament's power to police its self."

The appointment of Parliamentary Supervisors seems to me to be a step away from democracy, unless, of course, they are elected, but there is nothing to suggest that that is what is on the public's mind. And even if the supervisors were elected, who would supervise their pay and expenses? Would they cook up a cosy deal with the MPs for mutual benefit? And, by the way, what about the expenses of the Lords in the higher house?

My preference is for public information on expenses and Interactive Democracy, so that we can keep politicians in check.

In the ID system the public could call for a General Election if Parliament behaved scandalously or we could just dismiss corrupt MPs one at a time. Or perhaps make other suggestions to bring them to justice: a police investigation for example.

Public Service Announcements

Could public service announcements be created by government to sway the public's vote on an issue? How would Interactive Democracy deal with the prospect of a government using public money to get their point across?

For example, does something as simple as warning the public of the health problems associated with smoking have an impact on possible future ballots about smoking on the streets, tax on cigarettes or smoking near children?

I don't believe it matters, so long as the adverts are factually correct. If they aren't, then the government should be held to task by the Advertising Standards Authority (backed up by public power exerted through Interactive Democracy).

Increasing Political Party Membership

Interactive Democracy can increase the general population's involvement in politics and this may actually increase their interest in joining a political party (or parties), both as a route to garnering support for their ideas and as a means of debating and learning about political issues. I believe this would be good for democracy.

(The above graph does not confer support for any particular party from this web site.)

The Demise of Political Parties?

Would Interactive Democracy (ID) mean the ultimate demise of political parties?

There is a role for them in ID, to put forward the best candidates to become MPs, to debate political issues, create ideas for improvement and to solve national problems, to put forward theses ideas in the ePetition (Ideas Engine) system and to vote together en-mass to effect Interactive ballots. Also, people who want to be in government are likely to need to belong to a political party - the winning party in a general election. So, there are still very good reasons for parties to continue to exist.

In ID the power of political parties may be somewhat diluted among the population as a whole, as everyone can vote on each issue. However, this means that individual party members actually have more power, both as party members and normal voters. Their leaders have less power except for their powers of persuasion.

The Political Parties could also use the Interactive Democracy infrastructure for internal polls, perhaps improving the efficiency of there own operations.

Bolsheviks!

Despite its flavour of communist dictatorship (Stalin was a Bolshevik) the word actually means majority in Russian. Its communist overtones come from its use to describe one side of a split in the Russian Social Democratic Labour Party in 1903, the other side being the Mensheviks or minority.

Interactive Democracy relies on the power of majority but should never be associated with Communism, the political views of the Bolsheviks or the bloody days of the Russian Revolution.

Choosing to be a Politician

There is a notion that anyone can become a politician if they want to and that the party system selects and promotes the best candidates. Interactive Democracy doesn't undermine this system, however, it does counter balance it.

Not anyone can become a political candidate. For a start it is expensive to launch an election campaign as an independent, so the usual route is to become a party member to garner support and funding. However, if you are a party member you must tow the party line from time to time, so this very system can undermine an individuals freedom to act in line with their own conscience.

Interactive Democracy hands more power to those with an interest in politics who don't want to become party members or serving MPs. Some of these people are extraordinarily bright, with in depth experience in specific fields. Just think of all those doctors, judges, lawyers, professors, teachers, scientists, entrepreneurs and directors out there.

IQ and Power

On the face of it, Interactive Democracy provides equal voting power to all, whether your IQ is 50 or 150. However, this isn't the full story.

1. If your IQ is high you are far better able to persuade others of your case because you are likely to be more eloquent and coherent. So you can have a greater effect on far more votes.
2. People with a higher IQ may feel less intimidated about votes on complex issues and are likely to want to be more involved in politics. It's likely that fewer votes will be cast by below average IQ people than those with above average IQ.
3. People who vote randomly, without consideration of the debate, balance out each others votes, for and against, and the best arguments can still win a referendum.

It's also worth remembering that those people with low IQs may have more experience of certain social issues than your "average" genius, they may have greater empathy and may be more moral, so their votes should be valued all the same.

The West Lothian Question

First posed by Tam Dalyell in 1977, The West Lothian Question, as it came to be known, asked about the imperfect and unfair voting rights of Scottish and Welsh MPs over laws meant for England when English MPs had no equivalent in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly.

Interactive Democracy provides a system that partly solves this problem as votes are linked to a postcode and therefore, a region. However, it does not separate the voting rights of English, Scottish and Welsh MPs in the House of Commons when they vote on the development of viable bills. In my view this would be easy to fix, if there was the will to do so, simply by defining which MPs could vote on regional or national issues.

Abuse of Liquid Leadership

Could coercion, bullying, bribery or other types of manipulation allow "leaders" to seize votes using the Liquid Leadership model?

The full weight of the law may not prevent such abuse: People may be too intimidated to call the police. However, one idea to safeguard the process could involve an automatic email connection between everyone syndicated to any one leader: the more supporters they garnered the bigger the syndicate would become, forming a mutual support network that may build sufficient courage to bring charges against a corrupt leader.

Liquid Leadership by Subject

It would be possible to develop the Interactive Democracy (ID) idea to provide a system which would allow each voter to choose a different "Leader" for each of a number of subjects: Liquid Leadership, Liquid Democracy or delegated voting. For example, you may choose a trusted medical professional for votes about health care, an economist for votes about finance, a policeman for votes on law and order and a scientist for votes on the environment.

You should be able to terminate your delegated vote at any time and the system must have a secure way of recording how your vote was cast by registering a receipt to your ID account.

Increasing the Value of Your Vote

Interactive Democracy allows you to increase your political power in a number of ways: either become a member of parliament so that you can directly influence legislation and perhaps even become a member of the government; or persuade others, through argument and debate, to vote like you. The latter may involve you speaking at conferences, writing newsletters, blogging, campaigning on the high street or chatting with friends at the pub.

Liquid Democracy adds another way of increasing your voting power. It allows you to persuade others to link their vote to yours, automatically voting as you do. (They can rescind their link at any time.)

Saving Democracy with Web 2.0

This article, from Wired, describes how data can be tagged so that it can be easily cross-referenced in Web 2.0. The likely improvements in the presentation of information on the Internet will help anyone who wants to track government metrics, reports or political funding, to give just a few examples.

Filibustering