Crazy Empowerment

In this article, Rhodri Marsden comments on the Government's plan to allow 100 000 on-line signatures to precipitate a Westminster discussion of the subject. In particular he thinks it's too easy: "Registering approval or disapproval of anything online requires a few imperceptible finger movements and almost no brain activity."
He also points out that the previous Government's ePetition system would only have promoted Westminster discussion of 8 petitions, and the premise of one of them was clearly wrong.
He goes on to write "Petition schemes make governments look like they're listening and the electorates think they're being listened to, but it's faux-democratic. Proposals hammered out on a keyboard are generally hare-brained and ill thought out, and politicians regard them with the contempt they deserve."
I partly agree with Rhodri, but I applaud the Government's proposals, yet think they don't go far enough. I think that promoting high quality debate is perhaps the most important role of Democracy and the involvement of Parliamentarians on a debating forum, integrated with a voting system, would help to calm Rhodri's misgivings.

Planning Permission

Could Interactive Democracy be used to aid planning permission?

Perhaps a developer would enter a proposal on the ePetition system and then approach the neighbours to seek their support. Could they be bribed? Or would they launch their own campaign against the development, utilising the ePetition system?

The Council would need to assess the technicalities of the development: the impact on parking, the environment, drainage, lighting etc. They should consider the wider public requirements, not just local opinion. But it would seem strange if they ignored strong public sentiment expressed through ID

Similarly, it may be prudent for the Local Council to use the same system for developments of their own.

Pressure Groups

Recently I heard one pundit on the BBC comment that No.10s ePetition system was a bit of an own goal, as it was dominated by pressure groups. I don't see this as a bad thing. After all, political party members can use it too. As can labour unions, charities, rail customers, cancer victims, super heroes or newspaper campaigns, to name but a few. Surely the essence of democracy is expressing your opinion to enhance the debate.

Sure, the ePetition system is more open to abuse than the proposed Interactive Democracy system, by people using aliases to boost the numbers of signatures (an address is required, but is it checked?). But I applaud No.10 for providing this service. It's an experiment that Interactive Democracy can learn from.

You Don't Have To Be An Expert To Start A Petition

Inevitably, Interactive Democracy will be inundated by half baked ideas from amateurs. This isn't necessarily a bad thing because off-the-wall suggestions may inspire others to write their own, better informed, Petitions. In this way the ePetition system may act like an enormous brainstorming system. (One of the rules of brainstorming is that any idea should be recorded without criticism, as it may inspire other, better ideas.)

Crazy ideas are unlikely to garner sufficient support to be put before parliament, but even if they were, our elected politicians must debate them, look at the counter arguments and associated issues, and form realistic and workable choices to put before voters.

Time Limits

The No.10 ePetition system allows you to select how long you would like your petition to run, up to a maximum of 1 year. The Interactive Democracy system requires no such time limits as whichever petition has the most support goes before Parliament. This has the advantage that ideas can hang around long enough so that they may reach a tipping point where support suddenly blooms; they may quite suddenly have their day as new and unpredicted events focus public interest.

The Stupidest Person in the Country

In Interactive Democracy the stupidest person in the country has the same voting power as the brightest person in the country! Is this bad?

This unfortunate individual should have the same human rights and be treated with the same decency as anyone else. If they possess a little IQ it does not mean that they don't have emotional intelligence, sound morals or unique experiences from which to draw in reaching a decision.

And, should their vote be considered somewhat random, you may think of it as the noise on the signal of the national intent. Noise that is likely balanced by a random vote in the opposite direction, leaving the winning argument to emerge, clearly.

"IQ minim" is perhaps more likely to be swayed by strong persuaders and it is the role of effective political leadership, the media savvy and eloquent, to win him/her over. There will always be a role for intelligent leadership. The danger, as in any election, is manipulation of their vote by close associates.

The ideas engine (or ePetition) provides an opportunity for good solutions to emerge, allowing society to capitalise on the intelligence of the brightest. This is an area where "IQ minim" is unlikely to shine, unless their situation sparks ideas in others.

Link to a BBC article about votes for the mentally ill.

Petition the Prime Minister

You can easily launch your own political petition at http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/

The site has had more than 3 million signatories from different email addresses.

It is also interesting to look through the petitions already listed and to add your name to the ones you approve of. It may not be a legal vote, but it is heading towards Interactive Democracy.

Here's what The Times have to say about No.10's OnLine Petitions.

The Ideas Engine.... I'll Second That!

One of the central ideas of Interactive Democracy is that anyone can put forward a policy. Voters can then decide to "second the motion" with those ideas getting the most support being prioritised for "clarification" by the elected house of commons.

"Clarification" would set out the options to be presented for a public vote. The house of commons may also request further expert studies into the proposals before deciding when the referendum should be held.

The ability of the grass roots to put forward new ideas, rooted in their personal or professional experience, may be the strongest benefit of Interactive Democracy. Imagine healthcare professionals, police officers, soldiers and teachers being able to effect the law in this way.