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.
- If you have a broad interest in politics it makes sense that you join several parties to find out their various perspectives.
- How parties develop and capitalise on their membership lists will be a key competency for them in the future.
- Will this allow new parties to emerge? I suspect the strong brands, Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat, are best positioned as strong political influencers.
- 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.