Thomas Jefferson

In a letter written in 1816, Thomas Jefferson extolled the virtues of a democracy that would be as direct as possible. The idea was that everyone could contribute through town hall meetings. He called it

"the wisest invention ever devised by the wit of man for the perfect exercise of self-government, and for its preservation."

"... every man is a sharer... and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs, not merely at an election one day in the year, but every day."
As quoted here.

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.

The "Hazel Must Go" Campaign

In response to the MPs' Expenses scandal a group of voters decided to campaign for the resignation of Hazel Blears. She resigned from the cabinet but retains her position in the Labour party after persuading local Labour Party members in a closed meeting.
Interactive Democracy would allow campaigners against a politician to utilise the system to drum up support and force the issue. But I would expect the MP to defend themselves in the public space and not behind the closed doors of a party meeting. This may be a scary prospect for politicians but it's a very democratic one.

More here about "Hazel Must Go".

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.