Two Choices Are Best!

In any vote more than two choices increases the chance of the majority of the electorate being dissatisfied with the outcome. This link explains the argument.

This relates equally to a multi-party democracy or Interactive Democracy, suggesting that two choice votes may be better than multiple choice.

The Mathematics of Political IQ

Lets assume that each politician in the House of Commons is a genius and the average IQ is 150. Lets say there are 650 of them, then the total IQ is 97500.

Now imagine that just 10000 people vote in the Interactive Democratic system, with an average IQ of 100, then the total IQ is 1million, or 10.25 times the intellectual power of parliament!

This is a facile (if interesting) argument. However, 10000 people have a lot of life experience that isn't factored into the IQ scores. This total of diverse experience is perhaps a better argument in favour of referendum.

(It's not implausible that many millions of people may vote on certain decisions, making the total IQ for Interactive Democracy many magnitudes higher than Parliament.)

Dangerous and Naive!

There are several core concepts to Interactive Democracy:

1. Democracy can be improved with technology which can be highly secure.
2. Any modern democracy requires voter identity and secure databases.
3. Good decisions can be made by the electorate, not just the elite, because voters possess a vast depth and breadth of knowledge and experience.
4. Parliament should be responsible for the quality of data on which decisions are made using statistical analysis where appropriate.
5. Issues attract the electorate with vested interests in the outcome (eg teachers and parents on education issues).
6. A free press is crucial to democracy; "media interest" provides the impetus to make ID successful.
7. Facilitating everyone's contribution to new policy suggestions through the IdeasEngine (ePetition) system, outside the constraints of the party politics, will be good for society.

These notions are unproven and may be naive ideology. For sure, they are dangerous to the status quo.

The Wisdom of Crowds

"In this endlessly fascinating book, New Yorker columnist James Surowiecki explores a deceptively simple idea that has profound implications: large groups of people are smarter than an elite few, no matter how brilliant—better at solving problems, fostering innovation, coming to wise decisions, even predicting the future. This seemingly counterintuitive notion has endless and major ramifications for how businesses operate, how knowledge is advanced, how economies are (or should be) organized and how we live our daily lives. With seemingly boundless erudition and in delightfully clear prose, Surowiecki ranges across fields as diverse as popular culture, psychology, ant biology, economic behaviorism, artificial intelligence, military history and political theory to show just how this principle operates in the real world."

More at this link.

Selection for Sales Skills

The current political system selects our leaders and decision makers through a process of nominations and elections. However, I suspect the main trait that is used for selection is "Sales Ability" - the skills to influence people. Maybe the sales skill is least useful for analysis and decision making (but not leadership)? The point is that the system is prejudiced against people who may have developed other skills at the expense of their sales ability.

Clearly there are some remarkably capable politicians and I don't wish this question to disparage them or indeed insult sales people (I'm married to one of the best).

Experienced Politicians

Interactive Democracy doesn't diminish the need for experienced politicians. They are required to run parliament, form a government and create laws. They need to govern the process. But professional politicians sometimes lack the specialised experience of other professions for which policies are made. One advantage of ID is that it brings a vast array of life experience to bear on political decisions: the experience of doctors, nurses, teachers, soldiers and every other area of society. That adds colossal depth and breadth to political life.

European Democracy

Interactive Democracy may have an impact on EU policy, even if it is only implemented in Britain. Using ID, British policy on Europe may be effected directly by the electorate (as with any other issue) by influencing the UK member of the Council of Ministers. The system may also be used to petition MEPs to raise issues in the European Parliament. Of course an EU referendum would be easily facilitated by ID.

EU political structures

MEP Constituancies

Evolving Ideas... by Design

Anyone can join a political party, present their ideas, promote them within the party and they may eventually be presented to Parliament by an MP. This filtering and refining process prioritises vast numbers of ideas so that the best rise to the top.

Interactive Democracy makes the presentation of ideas more accessible to the general public and may increase the numbers of ideas being put forward. It makes the process easy for those not disposed to joining a party for whatever reason: perhaps they are too busy, don't like the parties other policies, don't understand the complexities of party politics, don't feel confident enough to present an idea or don't have the sales skills necessary to promote it. However, filtering the number of ideas that may be generated by the Ideas Engine (or ePetition) may be a problem because easy access may lead to "too many" ideas. There are a number of technological aids to solving this:

1. ePetitions are approved by the web master before posting, to ensure no duplication of ideas (as happens today with the No.10 system).


2. A search facility allows access to all relevant "petitions" on any one subject.


3. "Petitions" may be ranked by most popular or most recent or by relevance to a region (eg Wales or a local authority).


4. Amendments may be added by the original author (qualified by a separate count of "seconds").


5. The original author may be contactable by email.


6. Comments and questions may be posted on the site (moderated for abusiveness by the web master).


7. 'Other "petitions" you may be interested in' (automatically listed by the search facility) will be presented alongside the one you are reading, giving alternative views.


8. Reporting on the "petitions" in the media may clarify the issues and lead to amendments.


9. The "top 10" and "10 most recent" will be listed on the ePetitions home page.


10. The party political system will engage with the ePetitions system (Ideas Engine), debating and posting new ideas.


11. The party political system will encourage voting on ideas by party members.


12. 'Send to a friend' buttons would encourage distribution of ideas (ePetitions) by electronic word of mouth on the Internet.

Herd Instinct and Voting to Win

It seems to me possible that, as people see the votes amassing on one side of an election campaign, an extra incentive is added to vote the same way and be on the winning side. Maybe it's a similar psychology to that which causes bubbles in the stock market, though the 'need to win' is a far smaller incentive than making money. For this reason it may be prudent for Interactive Democracy not to show a running total of votes (which is very easy to do with a computerised system).

Is this a trap that the current ePetition systems should avoid too? Or are there 'transparency' advantages to showing the build up of votes?

ePetition Questions and Opinions

To encourage debate and clarification it may be useful for each ePetition to facilitate on-line questions to its author and the expression of opinions and arguments. These could be organised much like a discussion group "thread". Vulgar and offensive additions would need to be moderated.

Ammendments to ePetitions

The No.10 ePetition system does not allow amendments once the petition has gone live, after approval by the "web master". This is essential to the approval process and to its accountability to the signatories. However, it may be beneficial to allow the original author to add amendments for clarification, with each amendments' signatories being counted separately and reported together.

Too Much Law to Report?

Can we cope with two new votes a week? 105 Bills per year may be considered too many to report in the media. However, their contents can easily be published and disseminated on-line. Bills that pertain to certain sectors of society may be reported and discussed in the specialist press, rather than the main stream media, though I'd hope that responsible and prominent editors would encourage some coverage of every vote.

Parliamentary Bills

This link shows the "Business" of parliament. I counted 105 Bills in total, in the Lords and Commons. Is that too many for the public to decide on? Very probably. So the issue is how to decide which go to a public vote... or do we accept that if they all do, only a small percentage of the population will vote on any one issue?

In my opinion the latter is not such a problem as it will be the people that the decision impacts that are most likely to have their say.

The Power of The Press and Disinformation

As it stands, parliament has various mechanisms in place to discourage disinformation in politics. If the electorate are going to decide issues of government based on "facts" presented in the media, does there need to be an increase in accountability in the press? While a free press is crucial to any democracy, lying in the media may need to become a criminal offense!

Experienced in Politics / Experienced in Life

Interactive Democracy recognises that there is an important role for professional politicians but that job precludes them from an alternative career. Wouldn't it be useful if the experiences gained by professionals in other areas were factored into the political system? Of course individuals can do that today, by joining a political party or campaign, but that often takes time that a busy person may not have. It also requires skills that a capable engineer, teacher or soldier, for example, may not have. Interactive Democracy makes it easier for real life experiences from all sectors of society to be factored into politics.

The Brightest Person in the Country

Imagine the brightest, most capable person in Britain, well able to lead the country... but instead of politics they have chosen to dedicate their lives to cure cancer or teach children or run a business or create technology. Interactive Democracy provides a simple and efficient way for them to contribute to society without having to give up their career and become a politician.

Anyone not Everyone!

Anyone, given the strength of their qualities, can become a Member of Parliament. There is an argument that if you feel strongly about politics you should make the commitment in time and effort to become an MP. The party political process selects the best candidates to stand in elections by a process of "survival of the fittest".

Interactive Democracy recognises that not everyone can become an MP and contribute to public life in that way. There are only 646 seats in the house of commons meaning that vast numbers of intelligent and conscientious members of our society are unable to contribute to political life as much as they would like. Indeed, by dint of their experience, many of these people may be extremely well qualified to vote on individual issues.

Let the Politicians Decide!

There is an argument that only professional politicians have the time and inclination to fully understand issues of law making and national policy. The electorate, with all of the distractions of normal life, should not be allowed to vote on every law, because it takes time to build an understanding of the issues involved. A general election, or referendum on Europe, occur so infrequently that the electorate have the time to build up a good understanding of the issues.

Not overloading the electorate is a significant concern, but how do you decide which motions go to referendum? One solution would be to only select those that had gained significant support at the "seconding" (ePetition) stage of the Interactive Democratic process.

The Law is too complex for the electorate to decide!

This is a possible argument against referendum which I disagree with on several grounds:

1. In Interactive Democracy parliament will draft the law to ensure that it functions correctly
2. Complex issues can usually be explained in simple terms
3. Respected members of parliament will express their opinions to the public who may trust their judgement should they be unable to decide themselves. In short: there's still a role for leadership
4. Laws should be simple if the public are expected to comply with them
5. The public are already expected to vote in a general election which requires a judgement to be made on an incredibly complex, multi-faceted decision involving personalities, a range of policies and perhaps tactical voting. Voting on a single issue in ID is relatively straightforward in comparison

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Who guards the guards?

Parliamentary democracy has various safeguards: the higher House of Lords, the Committee on Standards in Public Life, the media and the fact that MPs can be voted out in the next election. Some would say that this isn't enough as the majority of power in Parliament rests with the Prime Minister and the government. Who checks on them?

Interactive Democracy may improve accountability to the people by giving them the ability to vote on any single issue. It may even be possible, should an MP be discovered lying to the house, that the public creates a vote of no confidence and ban them from parliament. It may also be sensible for the Committee on Standards in Public Life to make public their recommendations and allow the public to vote where necessary, instead of letting the Government decide the fate of the condemned, as is the case today.

The point is that ID creates a balance of power between parliament and the electorate in a way that doesn't exist today.

Who guards the guards? Parliament guards the interests of the electorate and the electorate guard Parliament.

Ideology and Experimentation

It has been suggested that there isn't a difference in the ideologies of the political parties anymore. They all seem to agree that balanced budgets, fairness, freedom of speech and parliamentary democracy are right and they all have policies on health, education and the environment. Interactive Democracy is a new ideology. Because it hasn't been tried yet, it remains unproven and involves an act of faith that the electorate can decide matters of law.

To move from faith to certainty requires experience and I would like to see experiments in Interactive Democracy. Perhaps local governments may try it first. Perhaps the regional assemblies. It can also be tested in stages rather than all at once: first the idea generation part, then parliamentary review, then referendum on key issues.

Policy Theft

It seems that the Labour government has ambushed the opposition parties and stolen their policies. But why shouldn't the government take the best ideas from wherever they can find them? In fact they didn't just steal them, they "improved" them too, selecting £600k as the IHT threshold, as opposed to the Conservatives £1m limit, in order to save a claimed £2bn in tax while offering gains to the vast majority.

While Interactive Democracy still requires a party political system, government and parliament, it encourages the development of ideas for the common good: the notion of "I'll see your idea and raise it!" is fundamental to improvement and central to Interactive Democracy.

Please note: I have no alliance to any political party.

BBC - History of Democracy

This link shows significant events in democracy around the globe.

Lateral Thinking... Collectively

It is hard to be creative without some sort of stimuli. I suspect that encouraging ideas for improving society from a widely diverse base of experience and expertise - from every voter - may increase our chances of developing our country.

In the Interactive Democracy model, as ideas rise in popularity and become more widely publicised, related ideas may emerge from various sources, for consideration by parliament. This would require the "ideas engine" to be designed to allow "threads" to develop. Something that is easily achieved with a computerised system.

More on Lateral Thinking.

Entrenched Arguments and Idea Inertia

It's rare to find someone who is capable of changing their minds on issues that they have argued long and hard for, especially in politics, where journalists are scathing of "about turns". It seems to me that every political party brings its own "idea inertia", for good or bad. In Interactive Democracy the Political Parties are essential in order to form a government, but ID as a process, involves many more diverse people, unrestrained by party policy and the chief whip. It may also encourage politicians to "think out of the box".