Time is Power

A criticism of Direct Democracy could be that votes are cast most frequently by those with time on their hands. Busy people are less able to consider the issues and vote. So, the argument goes, it is fairer to allow democratically elected expert politicians to make the decisions, partly because we give them the time to consider the issues.

The Swiss may disagree with this argument as their Direct Democracy has proven successful over many, many years.

Interactive Democracy provides an alternative route for involving people in direct democracy because it facilitates quick and simple voting and research via the Internet. However, the schedule should also allow plenty of time to consider the issues, listen to the radio debates, watch TV documentaries, read the papers and chat with friends.

Voting Shouldn't Be Too Easy!?

An argument against eVoting by internet/phone is that it is too easy and this will cause a lack of consideration of the arguments. But is this really so different from what occurs today, where the evidence suggests that general election votes depend heavily on traditional voting patterns: the term "Labour(Tory) heartlands" is frequently heard. However, there are other arguments against the "easy voting" criticism:

1. Ill-considered (random) voting probably swings both ways, eliminating its influence and allowing the best argument to emerge.


2. Anyone can change their vote before the count, allowing further consideration of the arguments even after initial impressions have caused an individual to "shoot (vote) from the hip".


3. Voting on single issues, rather than candidates, eliminates much of the compromise inherent in votes cast today where multiple issues are mixed with personalities, sales and marketing and the decision is multi-faceted and far more complex.