Government Spend on Opinion Polls

The government has released figures for their expenditure between May and September 2010 and the Guardian has created a tool for mining the data. Searching for "opinion polls" shows payments of about £5m to Market and Opinion Research international Ltd, otherwise known as MORI. That's £5m that could better go toward funding Interactive Democracy.

The annual £60m or so that goes to operate the House of Lords would easily cover the development and operation of ID.

Twit/Her

Conservative councillor Gareth Compton has been released on bail after his arrest for writing on Twitter "Can someone please stone Yasmin Alibhai-Brown to death? I won't tell Amnesty if you don't. It would be a blessing, really." A joke, off the cuff remark or criminal incitement to violence?

On the one hand intimidation has no place in a functioning democracy, on the other, many was the time my mother, exasperated at my behaviour, would say "I'll murder you!". Of course she didn't. And I never took her literally.

You may imagine the scope for abuse on a political debating site such as I am advocating for Interactive Democracy, it could get really out of hand. In order to promote rational debate I think that such a site should be very rigorous about punishing calls for aggression, against persons or property, and should come down hard on personal abuse and swearing. The system could be policed by users complaining about the behaviour of others. Sanctions could include banning individuals from the site for a period of time and/or removing their right to vote (if Europe would allow it). It needn't involve the police or judiciary, but should be overseen by Parliament.

More here from News-Mail.

Student Protest

Violence against property and the police certainly grabbed the media's attention. At least one policeman was hurt. It's yet to be seen if it will have any effect on government policy.

I advocate Interactive Democracy (or any direct democracy) as a way of avoiding such protests. It would give protesters a more effective voice, encourage debate, avoid destructive behaviours and reduce the cost of policing.

Election Courts

Phil Woolas has lost his appeal against the Election Courts' ruling that he lied and stirred up racial tensions in order to win the close run election for Oldham East and Saddleworth. He has been stripped of his seat and banned from standing for election for 3 years.

To my mind it is essential for democracy that candidates face the wrath of the law if they lie and deceive. Otherwise votes are cast on false information. This is the first conviction for 99 years, perhaps we should encourage more.

In a similar vein, I would also like to see the media held to account for lying. In this previous post I outline how it could work.

Here's more from The Telegraph on how the Labour party have reacted.

Barriers to Brainwashing

In her book "Brainwashing: The science of thought control", Kathleen Taylor describes 5 (FACET) factors that can help to prevent totalist and dogmatic thinking:

1. Freedom (of speech etc.)


2. Agency (freedom of action)


3. Complexity (the varied mix of human opinion, values and decisions; avoiding cliched thinking)


4. Ends-not-means (individuals, not cogs within a larger machine)


5. Thinking

It seems to me that Interactive Democracy reinforces and encourages these factors. Maybe that's a small thing given that Parliamentary Democracy also requires these elements (to a lesser degree) but history shows us that dogmatic beliefs, whether religious or political, have a tendency to emerge and re-emerge, often with detrimental effect, so any extra antidote could be good.

(For more on fundamentalism please see Robert Lifton's Eight Criteria for Thought Reform. It may provide some insight into the social psychology of terrorism.)

Prisoners' Votes

David Cameron conceded that there was nothing he could do to halt the European Court ruling that demands that British prisoners be given the right to vote. (More here from The Telegraph) Obviously prisoners forfeit some rights - for example their freedom - when they are convicted of a crime, but the courts ruled that the right to vote should remain.

It is interesting to note that our elected leader is powerless to effect the decision made by the higher democratic power in Europe, even though the MEP collective is only partly elected by British citizens and remote from them. And it is interesting to consider how prisoners may want to vote en bloc to achieve benefits for themselves. This may be even more problematic in Interactive Democracy if the general public, busy and preoccupied as they may be, don't consider votes instigated by "prisoner unions", who have all the time in the world to become involved. This may be good or bad, but, regardless, with ID the majority can change the system and over ride European diktats. That's democracy!

Black and White

In her book "Brainwashing - The Science of Thought Control", Kathleen Taylor writes

"Some people are driven to simplicity not just by laziness, selfishness or idiocy, but by fear, fury or frustration, negative emotions provoked by a threatening world."
Interactive Democracy provides the opportunity to develop complex debates in the media and on its own web site. The presentation of all this complexity may be ignored by some, perhaps those that are entrenched in their point of view, but it may be used by others to come to a more balanced point of view. Each "fear" used by one side of the debate may be diminished by the other; "fury" can be vented; and solutions for "frustrations" may be found.
(Kathleen Taylor is a research scientist in the Department of Physiology, Anatomy and Genetics at the University of Oxford.)

Above the Law?

Four MPs, charged with expense offenses, are arguing that they should be tried in Parliament, not the law courts. While there is some concern about the prejudicial bias in their cases (please see this Guardian article) don't we have to be careful of corruption in any case of self regulation?

It seems to me that one of the strengths of any fully functioning democracy is that the populace have powers over the political aristocracy, but I am concerned that in our democracy we can't exert enough focused and direct pressure for this to be effective. Interactive Democracy (or another form of direct democracy) would be much more powerful.

Suspect Suspension

Paul, Uddin and Bhatia may be suspended from the House of Lords for wrongfully claiming expenses. Shouldn't their titles be removed?

Lords Paul and Bhatia are significant donors to the Labour Party and millionaires in their own right. Is that the smell of corruption at the heart of British "democracy"?

They are not the only ones: Lord Hanningfield has been charged under Section 17 of the Theft Act, relating to false accounting for claims for overnight accommodation; Lord Taylor of Warwick pleaded not guilty at Southwark Crown Court on charges of false accounting; and, last year, Lord Taylor of Blackburn and Lord Truscott were suspended for just 6 months for being willing to accept cash to change laws.

More here from The Telegraph.
Interactive Democracy could replace the House of Lords as a control and check on Commons business, without losing the input of respected Peers.

Gaming the System

"Gaming" is the notion that any set of rules can be played for maximum advantage, often in ways that the original game designer didn't intend. This raises the question: how would Interactive Democracy be gamed?

• One way is that the issues to be voted on can be selected or written in such a way as to encourage one outcome.


• Another is to limit the number of choices.


• If several choices are available, a voting system may be offered that is proportional but biased.


• Deadlines for votes may be chosen to coincide with sporting events that drag peoples attention away.


• Wealthy individuals or groups, or the media, may pursue a campaign of persuasion.


• Individuals may bully others into a vote.

In previous posts I have addressed counter measures to some of these issues - the contribution of an elected Parliament, police powers, balancing media power with information on the voting site - but perhaps the best way to prevent abuse is to make the system adaptable enough for voters to change it in response to problems.

Applaud the Lord?

I have argued on this site that the House of Lords is inherently biased and undemocratic. Further, the £60 million-or-so annual spend on it would provide a nice budget for Interactive Democracy. But do we really want to lose the experience, intellect and insights of those people?

Another way to encompass them in the ID system would be to highlight their contributions, much in the same way that I have advocated that MP's contributions are brought to the fore.

Would they do it for free? I'd hope so. They are, after all, the recipients of decent pensions and typically of retirement age. But alternatively, they may be paid per contribution or for each vote of confidence their contributions receive.

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?

Experimentation: The Death of Ideology and Pursuit of Rational

In this TED talk, Esther Duflo (founder of MIT's Jameel Poverty Action Lab) explains how controlled experiments can be used to discover the best ways of fighting poverty. The same principles can be used to test many social policies and I would encourage politicians to become experts in this aspect of social science.
Interactive Democracy can also benefit from controlled and randomised social experiments. Perhaps each topic of debate should include a web site tab to propose and discuss how it can be tested. Apart from setting up experiments contributors may highlight comparisons with foreign government policy in order to shed more light on the subject.

Emotional to Rational

Are rational decisions better than emotional ones? I would say "Yes", because rational decisions may not only include our instinctive responses, but a wealth of other data and opinions.

Are some people much better able to make rational decisions? Would we rather these people were in positions of authority, making decisions for the rest of us? This may be a plausible argument in favour of Parliamentary Democracy and against Direct (or Interactive) Democracy.

So, what factors would increase rationality in decisions made by the electorate in the Interactive Democracy system?

1. Time: slowing down the decision making process allows us to gather more information.
2. Truth: collecting hard evidence can undermine our assumptions and give our decisions stronger foundations.
3. Perspective: our initial decisions are formed from our own perspective, but other inputs, over time, can encourage us to consider other points of view.
4. Values: understanding what we value most, and realising that others may value something else more, can build a rationale for making a decision.
5. Cost: carefully predicting the costs involved should have a strong influence on a decision.
6. Probability: unfortunately, most decisions involve estimates of costs and outcomes; having a clear understanding of the chances involved should impact a decision.

Designing an Interactive Democracy web site that presents peer reviewed data at the point of decision could discourage irrational decisions. The web site could allow voters to rank the most important values, encouraging clarification of ideas. There should be the facility to conduct an online debate, with links, threads and approval ratings, but with the opinions of MPs taking precedence (they are practiced in making a case, communicating it, and are motivated to do it well by the prospect of re-election). Peer reviewed reports and hard data should also be made available and properly audited estimates of the costs involved.

Public Administration Pay

Public administration is often performed by public servants who have never been elected. They may be foreign diplomats or city managers and they work in the name of the public at every level from local to national. This public administration degree site gives a more complete explanation of the roles and professions these bureaucrats perform in government. Recently, the BBC's Panorama programme looked at the pay of top public servants, many of whom earn more than the Prime Minister. I wonder if Interactive Democracy would enable votes 'for' or 'against' top notch pay packages and if the ensuing debate would clarify the benefits that senior employees bring?

Rational Decisions?

This entertaining lecture, by Harvard psychologist Dan Gilbert, highlights some ways in which we make daft decisions.

"I'll pay less, thanks for asking."

This article, published by the BBC in 2002, reviews the results of Council Tax referendums. Not everyone wanted to pay less tax: in 1999 Milton Keynes voted to increase tax but other majorities chose the least expensive option. In subsequent years the idea of asking voters has been abandoned possibly due to the low turnouts and high admin costs. Croydon Council spent £150k on a referendum on two issues but to put that in perspective it costs about £60 million a year to run the House of Lords.

If Interactive Democracy were in place, utilising secure web sites, the cost of each referendum would be very small indeed. I wonder if ease of access would also boost voter involvement.

Spending Challenge

The Government asked for ideas on cutting public sector spending, in order to reduce the deficit, and then asked you to vote on them. According to their site 45000 ideas were submitted and 250000 votes cast. Unfortunately the process has now closed. Why can't this be an ongoing system? It could easily be part of the ID web site.

Peer Review

The scientific process - observation, hypothesis, experimentation and new hypothesis - isn't the end of the matter. Peer review involves a whole raft of knowledgeable and motivated people in considering the truth of scientific papers. In the initial stages of this review process are editors who send papers out to their selected reviewers before they commit to publishing.

Could this process become part of democracy?

Central to the notion is that editors are able to choose experts who have a greater say over the progress of ideas than anyone else. It is entirely feasible that a cross party committee of MPs could assess the qualifications of people who put themselves forwards for this role, based on academic qualifications or direct experience. These reviewers (who are unlikely to be politicians) could be given the privilege of being able to express themselves on "Experts" pages attached to each issue on the ID website, which voters could then read and judge. This would ensure expert leadership were brought to the fore without undermining the power of voters. It would also form another counterbalance to the power of the press.

Data Democracy

In this TED Talk, David McCandless presents some ideas on data visualisation and shows how it can lend perspective to the raw numbers, present vast complexity in a simple form and illuminate patterns. It could be an asset to democratic debate.
As part of his lecture he also presents a diagram of the left and right in politics, maintaining a balanced approach.


Data images are available from David's website - here.

Choices, Choices...

In the following lecture by Sheena Iyengar, from Colombia Business School, the cultural differences between how people deal with choices is explored. Sheena's work may be relevant to democracy and how it is applied in different cultures (Switzerland? Afghanistan?). She also touches on the relevance of choice to performance and happiness.

Within the proposed Interactive Democracy system, choices are effected by debate, leadership and data. The politicians may act as expert advisers and those that don't want to choose may devolve their vote to other people within the liquid leadership system.

Evolved to be Wrong

Laurie Santos runs the Comparative Cognition Laboratory at Yale. In this video she explains how monkeys make the same mistakes as humans and suggests that our decision making may have evolved to make poor decisions many millions of years ago. Interactive Democracy involves many people in collective decisions, avoiding some of the bias that may be inherent in small groups, but if we all have the same problem behaviours hard wired into our brains by evolution, maybe other decision making systems are required? For example, the theory/experiment approach of science or the 6 Sigma methodology of Define, Measure, Analyse, Improve and Control.

Three Coalition Policies

Three items from the Coalition Government paper:

"We will give residents the power to instigate local referendums on any local issue.

"We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by l0% of his or her constituents.

"We will ensure that any petition that secures l00,000 signatures will be eligible for formal debate in Parliament. The petition with the most signatures will enable members of the public to table a bill eligible to be voted on in Parliament."

Happiness

Research in Switzerland has indicated that Direct Democracy can contribute to happiness. The following lecture, by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman, explores the notion of happiness in more detail, contrasting what we remember with what we experience and the difference between happiness and well being. Finally it briefly examines US poll data and the correlations between income and happiness. This shows that incomes above $60k don't add any more happiness, but incomes below $60k rapidly erode happiness.





Could it be that Direct or Interactive Democracy would naturally adjust policy to achieve the greatest total of happiness in society, given that the greatest number of citizens have lower wages and would benefit most from policies that improved their wealth while richer people may not gain happiness from greater wealth?

(This idea doesn't necessarily point towards wealth redistribution; it may just as easily point to wealth creation via capitalism. I note that Switzerland has the highest per capita income of any country in Europe.)

German Referendum on Smoking Ban

Posted to Usenet groups uk.politics.constitution, scot.politics July 2010
Bavaria once had some of the toughest smoking restrictions in Germany.It eased them last year, allowing smoking in one-room bars of up to 800square feet and in beer tents. The referendum approved Sunday overrides that. Those who want to light up in restaurants, bars, cafes or even beer tents will have to go outside instead. A referendum requiring that was approved Sunday by voters in Bavaria. (Associated Press, July 4, 2010)

The new constitution of post-world-war-II Bavaria guarantees citizens the right to propose and obtain a legally binding referendum in the Land(state of the federation). The people have used this right several times, for instance to introduce regulations for direct democracy in cities, towns and districts, also to abolish the second chamber of parliament (Senat). In order to obtain a referendum, 10 percent of voters must endorse the proposal. If the proposal is rejected by parliament then a referendum must be held. A majority of votes cast is needed to approve the proposal as law.

Thanks to INIREF for this post.