Institutions v Collaboration

In this TED talk Clay Shirky highlights the differences between the institution and collaboration, and the way they get things done. In particular he compares the costs and values of each and points out that in a collaborative effort some people contribute a lot and others contribute a little. However, small contributions may make a significant difference. I would expect the same in Interactive Democracy: most of the contributions would come from those that are interested in politics with occasional valuable contributions from others.
Clay also describes how Institutions resist the loss of control that collaborative organisation brings. I would expect the same from Westminster.

Play the Game

In this lecture Jane MacGonigal, Director of Game R&D at the Institute for the Future, looks at how we may be able to tap into the concentrated efforts of on-line gamers to come up with ideas to solve the world's problems. Perhaps Interactive Democracy could be seen as just such a game?
Here are some of the aspects of on-line gaming that draw people in

• Common purpose
• Playing by the same rules
• Rapid feedback
• Achievable goals
• Collaboration
• Easy access to play the game

Interactive Democracy already ticks most of these boxes. The ID system itself creates the rules by which the game is played and the common purpose is to improve society. By allowing votes to be cast on ideas and comments and facilitating threads that can be linked to other contributors, collaboration and feedback is achieved. The internet provides easy access.
I have previously outlined the notion of the IDeA (Interactive Democracy Award) for successful contributors, but it may also be possible to create other ways of scoring your input. Perhaps the system could track how many votes of approval have been cast on your contributions, keeping a running total on your voting account? Something to be proud of?