Diversity Trumps Ability

Lu Hong and Scott Page in their paper "Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers" asked the question:


"Can a functionally diverse group whose members have less ability outperform a group of people with high ability who may themselves be diverse?"


Or, put in another context, can direct democracy outperform a political elite?

They answer yes, but their conclusions are nuanced and aimed mainly at diversity in problem solving organisations rather than whole democracies.

"even if we were to accept the claim that IQ tests, Scholastic Aptitude Test scores, and college grades predict individual problem-solving ability, they may not be as important in determining a person's potential contribution as a problem solver as would be measures of how differently that person thinks."
 
Yet, it seems to me that our political elite are fairly homogenous and highly susceptible to group think in a way that the wider population aren't.

Hong and Page also comment on communication, understanding and learning:

".... Problem solvers with nearly identical perspectives but diverse heuristics should communicate with one another easily. But problem solvers with diverse perspectives may have trouble understanding solutions identified by other agents. Firms then may want to hire people with similar perspectives yet maintain a diversity of heuristics. In this way, the firm can exploit diversity while minimizing communication costs. Finally, our model also does not allow problem solvers to learn. Learning could be modeled as the acquisition of new perspectives and heuristics. Clearly, in a learning model, problem solvers would have incentives to acquire diverse perspectives and heuristics"

Interactive Democracy offers a structured way for any voter to contribute proposals and debate outcomes, helping to solve some of the communication problems highlighted by Hong and Page by categorising debating points as positive, negative and interesting, and ranking them by votes of approval or disapproval. But Hong and Page's final point is perhaps my favourite argument for Interactive Democracy: that debate is a type of education with its own merit, and there's every chance that populations will get better at doing it.

This post was inspired by this blog:

http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2014/10/diversity-trumps-ability.html

Make Lying in Parliament History - A Petition

Change.org has a new petition by Jolyon Rubinstein: Make Lying in Parliament History. You can sign it here.

Lying in a democracy reminds me of the old computer programmers saying: GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. But I would go further than just banning lying in Parliament and want sanctions against all political lies aimed at deceiving the public. One way of doing this would be to use the Advertising Standards model (which doesn't yet cover political advertising). I think the harshest sanctions should be for prepared statements with demands for corrections for wrong statements made in interview or conversation. The same should apply to journalists. Corrections should be made with the same "volume" as the original mistake.
Please click here for a more detailed view of how this would work.

Demoex

Demoex (from democracy experiment) has a representative in Vallentuna, a suburb of Stockholm. Any local resident over the age of 16 can vote on issues that the council are about to decide and their councilor then re-presents their view. Anyone can get involved in the preceding online debate if they can write in Swedish. Demoex held this seat for more than 8 years, winning three elections, but lost the recent election after amalgamating with other direct democracy advocates to create a national party, Direktdemokraterna.

Denny de la Haye founded a UK branch of Demoex and ran in the 2010 UK General Election. Please see his comments below (thanks, Denny - I've updated this post).

Demoex also have a presence in Brazil.

Lista Partecipata is an Italian initiative using a similar concept as Demoex. Their slogan is "The control of government in the hands of the citizens (and not only at election time)".

Senator On-Line is an Australian political party which proposes to have no platform but rather to act based on online polls.

Digital Democracy UK

Digital Democracy UK is already up and running. Here's their summary:

"Digital Democracy is a campaigning website that does two things:

1) It lets you start and gain support for !Changes.

Register on the website to make a !Change about any issue you have.

Use the tools on the website to gain support from your family, friends and contacts.

2) It helps identify your local community's priorities.

New !Changes are submitted, debated and ranked by popularity alongside others in their area.

!Changes are ranked by the level of support in each local community.

When !Changes reach certain levels of support the !Change is sent to MPs, MEPs, and councillors who are then invited to respond to the issues."

Why Britain should copy Switzerland's referendums

Matthew Lynn has written a piece in MoneyWeek (21/11/14): "Why Britain should copy Switzerland's referendums". Available here.
I'm a fan of the Swiss democratic model. But I'm also a fan of bringing it into the 21st Century by using the internet to make voting cheap and convenient. Interactive Democracy would also facilitate structured debates that could be analysed by voter (age, sex, occupation) and location, allowing voters to aggregate the views of doctors on healthcare issues, for example. Anyone could contribute proposals or initiatives with everyone able to add plus, minus and interesting points and voting if they agree or disagree with each, prioritising and clarifying the issues. Such a system would tap into the creativity and intellect of the population without favour or bias and could, in the future, be considered an important part of our national infrastructure, utilised by many organisations for their own internal issues, as well as at every level of politics.
You can see a mock up of what the ID site could look like by clicking here.

Americans Vote on Initiatives

Alongside the recent Congressional elections Americans also voted on a range of local initiatives including gun controls, marijuana, abortion, minimum pay and healthcare. You can read more about it at NBC, here.

New Power

In this TED talk Jeremy Heimans describes what New Power looks like. Why should you listen to him? Because he's an ex-McKinsey strategy consultant who helped found " GetUp (an Australian political movement with more members than Australia's political parties combined), Avaaz (an online political movement with more than 15 million members) and AllOut (a global movement for LGBT people and their straight friends and family)."
Interactive Democracy could be described as new power, but for it to work to its full potential it needs to become part of the establishment. That's a challenge, as people in power are unlikely to want to give it up. Perhaps the only way to get there is to establish a new political party as was described in the last TED talk I published. Alternatively, members of political parties should be made aware that ID empowers them, too. Sell the idea to them and their leaders will have to accommodate it.

Baby P: The Untold Story

5 years ago I wrote about the Baby P scandal and how it related to Interactive Democracy. Now there's a new TV programme from the BBC, "Baby P: The Untold Story". I found it a depressing insight into British politics, media and culture.
Perhaps the wisest comment in the broadcast was that a series of small mistakes across multiple organisations caused a failure to protect Baby P from his mother and her boyfriend. Yet it also points out that David Cameron misinformed parliament about the age of Baby P's mother. A small mistake. The Sun newspaper misinformed the public about the number of social service's visits. A small mistake. The media reported that a doctor had failed to diagnose a broken back. Probably a small mistake (his back was unlikely to have been broken at the time of the examination according to a pathologist). Ed Balls expected an emergency inspection and report to take just two weeks when normally it would take months. A small mistake. A significant part of a Great Ormond Street report didn't reach inspectors. A deceitful mistake. Ofsted rated Social Services as good and then changed their minds, possibly after political manipulation (the report was edited numerous times by senior management not directly involved in the inspection and in consultation with Ed Ball's office). A worrying mistake. They then destroyed the evidence supporting their own study, as they do as a matter of course. An admin policy mistake. Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly dismissed and was subsequently awarded damages of nearly £680 000. A costly mistake.
According to the programme, since Baby P's death 260 other children have died. 26 of them were known to social services. These aren't mistakes, they are murder or manslaughter.
All mistakes should be corrected if we are to improve and I believe we should have laws against lying in public life. Incorrect statements should be corrected with as much 'volume' as the original error. I wrote about how this could work, here.
(You can read my original Baby P post here.)

Struggling to Upgrade Democracy in Argentina

This fascinating TED talk by Pia Mancini describes how her group in Argentina developed a democracy app, Democracy OS, which they tried to promote among the main political parties. Spurned, they decided to create their own party, Partido de la Red.



 “[Partido de la Red] are a party of the present, looking to the future, who believe in using the tools of today - the internet and other technology – to radically change the current political system.” — The Daily Beast, 2014

Referendum, Pressure Release Valve or Pressure Cooker?

I've written before that direct democracy could be a useful pressure release valve for political activists who would be better persuading other voters than engaging in violent protest. On the other hand some commentators have lamented the animosity evident in the recent Scottish independence referendum. So what provokes aggression?
It could be that some people just can't consider that others have different values. Some are traditionalists, others progressives. Some narrowly nationalistic, others not.
Or it could be that people feel that they are being lied to, deceived or manipulated by leaders, politicians and campaigners. Maybe sometimes by design, sometimes by accident or misinterpretation. (Scotland can't have the pound, some said. Of course they can, they have pounds in their bank accounts and pockets. How're you going to stop them? What was meant was that the Bank of England would refuse to be lender of last resort to Scottish banks.)
Then there's the matter of forecasting the future benefits of a decision, and all the assumptions that that entails. Is it rosy or grey? Who knows? There's nothing true about forecasts, they are usually inaccurate, unless by luck, and often wildly wrong.
Maybe we can introduce systems that help to reduce some of these provocations. Laws against lying in public life would be a start. Discussion of the limits of forecasting would be useful. Appreciation of differences in values and respect for others opinions may be a cultural thing that could be learnt. Maybe doing direct democracy, and losing, builds a bit of humility that makes things less fraught next time. And maybe having a system of direct democracy that allows future corrections and amendments to recent decisions takes the edge off disappointment. If Switzerland changes its constitution by referendum then the system is already in place to change it back again, if demanded.
But when I sit back and consider the referendum for Scottish Independence and the state of Eastern Ukraine it's pretty obvious what's best!

Inclusive Institutions, not Culture

In "The Great Degeneration" Niall Ferguson argues that inclusive institutions, not culture, explain the success of the West. "... while culture may instill norms, institutions create incentives. Britons versed in much the same culture behaved very differently depending on whether they emigrated to New England or worked for the East India Company in Bengal. In the former case we find inclusive institutions, in the latter extractive ones." I have previously argued that culture is a significant factor in impeding the tyranny of the majority and persecution of minorities, but Niall has a point. Further proof comes from the structure of the Swiss Federation which protected the rights of the large minority Catholic Cantons against domination by the Protestant majority. If only the same could be created in Syria and Iraq for Sunni and Shia.
(The Human Rights Act may also help.)

Budgeting in Switzerland

There has been some concern expressed amongst the financial press that promises made to Scotland will cause budgetary uncertainty and devalue Britain as an economic safe haven (click here). But Switzerland shows that that need not be the case. The OECD published this detailed analysis in 2005. Things may have changed since but reading it reveals a number of things. They have a constitutional commitment to debt containment. The limits are defined mathematically and compensate for the business cycle. 75% of the budget is transferred to sub-national government and social security funds. It's complicated, but shows how detailed financial policy can be implemented in a direct democracy federation by elected, often part time, politicians.
The report also provides a succinct summary of Switzerland's constitutional history:-

"Switzerland came into existence as a national State in the first half of the 19th century as a consequence of a process of political integration of 25 regional communities known as “cantons”. This process culminated in the establishment of the first federal constitution in 1848. This constitution was based on a compromise between a liberal Protestant majority, mostly living in a small number of populous cantons, and a Catholic conservative minority, mostly living in a large number of thinly populated cantons. The rights of the minority were protected through constitutional provisions that guarantee the competences of the cantons and limit the responsibilities of the Federation and through cantonal representation in the federal political system, particularly in the Council of States (the upper chamber of Parliament)."

And it summarises their unique system:-

"The Swiss budgeting system is characterised by three special features that differentiate it from most other OECD countries:
● the political environment, characterised by direct democracy (referendums), federalism and a tradition/system of achieving consensus;
● the debt containment rule, which is a constitutional provision mandating a balanced budget over a business cycle (structural balance);● the nature of the Swiss federal budget as a transfer budget."

Information Democracy

What's most important, accurate information or democracy?
Democracy allows us to express our values and wants but it also expresses our ignorance unless fed with accurate information. This entertaining TED talk and quiz by Hans Rosling shows just how wrong our intuitions about the world can be.


So how do we ensure good information?
Firstly, there should be a law prohibiting lying in politics, as I have written about before.
Secondly, Parliament should commission studies relevant to the issue at hand.
Thirdly, the ID system should encourage the referencing and linking of studies and data to the ID site, enabling people to debate the numbers, correlations, assumptions, etc.
Finally, each new policy should be measured for its effect, with that information supplied to the public. This is akin to the 6 Sigma quality management system (define, measure, analyze, improve and control) and may lead to further improvements in policy.

Ineffective Democracy

Could one of the reasons for a substantial number of Scots wanting to split from the UK be that we have an ineffective democracy? On several occasions I've seen and heard interviews with Scots who point out that in the last election they only returned one Conservative MP yet are now lead by a Conservative Prime Minister (in a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition).
Would the earlier introduction of new powers for Scotland's parliament have avoided the devolution referendum? It may have done.
Would Direct Democracy, like Switzerland, have empowered Scots? Probably. The Swiss have long prospered with a system of Cantons speaking different languages and doing local government.
Seen in this light, the possible break up of the UK can be seen as an indictment of our political system by the Unionist side. Too little, too late. Too central, too out of touch.

Sacking Politicians

There's a problem with sacking politicians. For example, Councillor Robert Bleakley of Tyldesley ran up bills of £2400 calling sex lines on a taxpayer funded phone. He is also accused of sexism. Yet a democratic principle is that an elected politician shouldn't be sacked by an official. They should only run the gauntlet of public opinion at the next election.
Interactive Democracy provides another, more immediate solution as it can be deployed quickly and efficiently to run a ballot on his dismissal and the employment of an alternative representative, without waiting for the next election cycle.

New Deal

Gordon Brown has announced a new deal for Scotland to encourage the 'No' vote, despite postal votes having already been cast, probably to the annoyance of some. If we used online voting this would not be a problem. Even those that had already cast their vote could get back online and change it, right up to the deadline. So Interactive Democracy supports the sort of changeable policies that we are seeing in Scotland far better than the existing postal voting system.

The Rational Voter

"I can't see how anyone can be a rational voter without some grasp of how economies work. This has been brought home to me by the miserably low level of debate about the Scottish referendum.
"Very few people seem to know the difference between the pound and the Bank of England. The UK government hasn't said that Scotland can't use the pound. Anyone can use the pound. What it has said is that Scotland can't use the pound and, outside a formal currency union, use the Bank of England as a lender of last resort and set monetary policy. This key point appears to have been passed by many voters. So have the mechanisms by which interest rates are set; the difference between government deficits and government debts; and the way countries raise money in the international markets. This means that far too many people will be voting on something hugely important on 18 September without the tools to understand the implications."

Merryn Somerset Webb, MoneyWeek Issue 707, Editorial.

Merryn is arguing for better financial education, but surely the same rationale could support the view that there shouldn't be referenda because the electorate aren't educated enough to form a rational view. I disagree, but I'll come to that in a moment. First, here's another perspective:

"7 out of 10 Members of Parliament think that only the government is able to create money"

Ben Dyson (Positive Money) on August 19, 2014.

In fact the banks create and destroy money by providing loans in a fractional reserve banking system. So, maybe the political elite aren't as savvy about theeconomy as we may have hoped!

It is my view that good quality debate educates voters. Perhaps that is the single biggest advantage of direct democracy. But I'm not talking about the shouting match that televised debates sometimes descend into. I propose that Interactive Democracy should facilitate written debates where points and counter points are raised and promoted or demoted by the approval of voters. Prior to the referendum you can read the main points or drill into the topic, reading the reference material provided. To encourage this, the debate summary would be presented to you before you reached the voting page on the ID web site. Furthermore, I propose that there be sanctions against lying in public life, to resist the demagoguery that can undermine any democracy.

Taking the Scotland Referendum as an example, I'd hope that debaters would reference the comments made by Economics Nobel Prize winner Joseph Stiglitz, amongst others. And that each side provided properly rigorous financial forecasts, showing their assumptions for scrutiny.

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

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

Politics: The Art of Best Compromise

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

Disempowerment

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

Gagging Law

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

Secret Ballots and Cryptocurrency

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

Working the Political System

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

Lawrence Summers, Financial Times, 8/06/14

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

Oligarchs and Poligarchs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

State Capture

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

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

Thus comments Bill Bonner in his "Daily Reckoning" newsletter, commenting on T Piketty's "Capital in the 21st Century".

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

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

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

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

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

Accurate?

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

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

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

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

So, should UKIP be allowed to print it?

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

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

Clegg v Farage

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

Culture - The Ultimate Group Think

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

Groupthink / Groupspeak

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

Tablets Drive Deeper News Consumption

According to this report by Starcom MediaVest and the BBC, tablet users "consume" more news across more topics. This means that mobile internet is helping educate people about current affairs, supporting the adoption of Interactive Democracy in a number of ways:-

• Issues can be researched with ease. They can check the facts of others' arguments.
• Voters can choose to access a variety of news and information sites which aren't monopolised by large media organisations.
• Votes can be cast from a personal mobile device in a convenient and secure way, probably boosting "turnout".
• The device can be carried to a private and secure location providing better secrecy of votes cast.
• Voters can be prompted to vote, boosting "turnout".

The Key Question

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

Fragile by Design

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

Inspired by MoneyWeek, 14 March 2014.

Skin in the Game

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

This post was inspired by "Antifragile" by Nassim Taleb.

Recall

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

London Sucks Wealth Out Of Britain

Aditya Chakrabortty wrote in The Guardian

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

Reported in MoneyWeek 14/02/14.

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

Swiss Referendum v European Union

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

Compensate for Fallibility

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