Hacktivists

Could hacktivists attack the Interactive Democracy system? Could foreign governments attack it? We are, perhaps, seeing the emergence of cyber wars, cyber terrorism, cyber vandalism, cyber coercion.

The main threat to ID wouldn't be the obvious attacks, we can just press the re-set button and vote again, it would be the unnoticed corruption.

Apart from a wide range of technical defences, each individual should monitor their own ID account, much like we monitor our bank accounts, looking for spurious transactions.

In(form) The Public Interest

Wikileaks is at the centre of an international storm of power brokers. Governments condemn, Paypal and Mastercard cut-off, hacktivists attack, courts subpoena, Twitter squawks, journalists blush, pundits pronounce and editors select. Or so it seems.

To my mind this highlights the relationship between information and power and the essential tension between opposing forces that is crucial for democracy: governments versus opposition versus media versus voters, prosecution and defence. To allow one faction to dominate is rarely in the public interest.

"Watergate" is a prime example, one of many, where journalists have taken on governments, but Wikileaks operates beyond democratic boundaries. It is shining a light on an international game of poker.

In a democracy, who decides what's in the public interest? Based on what information?

Google

MoneyWeek reported: "EU competition authorities plan to investigate allegations that Internet giant Google has abused its dominant position in the online search market. One complaint is that it deliberately pushes rivals' sites down its list of search results. It also allegedly prevents advertisers placing certain types of advertisements on other sites."

This highlights the power that search engines and web masters could have in Interactive Democracy, if they weren't supervised by Parliament.

Civil Service Values and Ethics

The Civil Service "supports the government of the day in developing and implementing its policies, and in delivering public services." The core values are Integrity, Honesty, Objectivity and Impartiality.

I think it would be fair for civil servants to contribute to Interactive Democracy while applying these core values to the way they conduct themselves in debates and how they support the government as it implements policy. I don't see a problem with them declaring their employment position, or a conflict between their sworn support for the government and their democratic rights. But I can imagine, given human nature, that to avoid conflict in the work place, they may want to remain anonymous.

For The Civil Service Code please click here.

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.

Change the Party

Some would argue that today's politics works because anyone can join a party and change it from within, by the power of their arguments. Therefore, they may say, Interactive Democracy is not necessary.

The problem with this is that it doesn't seem to recognise a number of retarding factors inherent in all political parties:

1. Group think


2. Entrenched attitudes and philosophies; dogma


3. Established power bases within the party and its funding mechanisms


4. Pecking order


5. The difficulties of gaining credibility


6. The limits of trying to persuade one party when you may be able to persuade parts of other groups - the constraints of loyalty

Happiness Survey

The government is seeking to understand the nation's happiness, or well being, by instigating a survey. Some have criticised the cost of such an initiative. The Interactive Democracy web site could ask people to complete questionnaires on this issue or any other and would be an efficient method given its low cost, potentially large sample size and demographic accuracy. More here, from the Guardian.

It's also interesting to note that, according to one academic survey, direct democracy enhances the happiness of the Swiss, presumably by giving them the feeling of greater control over their lives.

More on Happiness here.

Many-festos

With coalition governments, does it becomes harder to hold politicians to account for their promises; does proportional representation make coalitions more likely and further reduce the relevance of the manifesto? I think it probably does. Yet, even with a majority government election promises aren't always kept. The solution could be Interactive Democracy.

More here, from Reuters, on Student Fees and the LibDems.

Direct Action or Direct Democracy

There have been two cases in recent years when juries have acquitted vandals who, in one case, damaged the nose cone of a Hawk jet being sold to Indonesia and, in another, attempted to prevent B52s flying on a bombing mission to Iraq. The court seemed to think that their direct action prevented a greater crime. Is this a symptom of the ineffectiveness of our democracy and would direct democracy help?

I suspect it would. Sure, there will likely be a small proportion of the population bent on destruction, but these people may lack the support of a wider group that otherwise gives them the backbone to proceed. Also, a jury may be more likely to convict vandals who could have otherwise pursued their objectives by easily accessible democratic means, by persuasion and debate.

More here from The Guardian.

Direct Action was the subject of this episode of The Moral Maze.

Online-only

"Government services to be online-only" states The Observer (21.11.10).

"Officials say getting rid of all paper applications could save billions of pounds. They insist that vulnerable groups will be able to fill in forms digitally at their local post offices."

"Around 27% of households still have no Internet connection at home and six million people aged over 65 have never used the web."

Libraries also provide public access to the web and librarians will help people get on-line. Both libraries and post offices may, in the future, offer access to Interactive Democracy. We will also see increasing numbers of households getting connected.

Prejudicial Web

There has been simmering concern in our law courts that jurors are being prejudiced by information they have surreptitiously discovered on the Internet. If we take trial by jury as analogous to Interactive Democracy, judges as Parliament and jurors as voters, then doesn't the Internet pose equally serious problems for direct democracy?

If the ID site is designed to present the opinions of MPs and their approved sources of data, then this balances the free for all nature of the rest of the Internet. The millions of voters involved in ID also mean that false information discovered on some obscure filament of the web is unlikely to sway the final decision.

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.