Liquid Democracy?

Liquid Democracy is a concept where any individual may give their vote to another person, who may then give their vote to yet another. This enables others to vote on your behalf and is a way of deferring to someone you believe in. It is one way of solving the problem of people not having the time to consider every issue.

Liquid Democracy could become part of Interactive Democracy but may leave the door open to coercion and corruption, though such cases would be deterred by the criminal law.

More on this from Wikipedia.

Leasing Interactive Democracy to Other Organisations

Other organisations, public institutions or businesses, could conceivably want to poll their members. They may want to set up their own ID system but the government may consider renting out the national system if it has enough capacity. The ID infrastructure may be viewed in the same way as we consider National Grid or the rail infrastructure today.

The results of using ID for these purposes would be considered private and the security of the polls may carry the full weight of the law.

For some interesting insight into radical organisation structures in business see "Maverick" by Ricardo Semler.

Unions

Like any other organisation, Unions may utilise Interactive Democracy to mobilise the wider public in support of their aims. Acting together, Union members may establish sufficient support to force Parliament to consider their issues and put their proposals to a national vote.

Demonstrations

In 1968 a march against the Vietnam War was estimated to number 100 000 people. In February 2003 British police estimated 750 000 marched against a new war in Iraq (other analysts estimated 2 million were involved), which was reflected in similar demonstrations around the world. It had no visible effect on government policy!

Interactive Democracy provides a system to give demonstrators real political power, should they be able to persuade the majority of their views.

Parliament

Gladstone told parliament in 1869 "Your business is not to govern the country... But it is, if you see fit, to call to account those that do govern it."

This isn't a role that Interactive Democracy would undermine. In fact, I believe Parliament should be reinforced in its ability to gather information and question the government on behalf of the electorate... as we may express through the Interactive Democracy system.

Anarchy

Some may sense a flavour of the discredited Anarchist movement in the concept of Interactive Democracy. Nothing could be further from the truth. ID builds on Law and Order and reinforces collective responsibility not "anything goes" individual freedoms.

Tough Love and Coming of Age

Sometimes parents have to make harsh decisions for the long term good of their children. Sometimes governments may adopt a similar attitude and fly in the face of public opinion. They believe, as rulers, that they are right and their decisions are for the common good. This is an argument sometimes put forward for Parliamentary Democracy.

The electorate aren't children. They have foresight and are willing to suffer for what they believe to be right: witness the efforts and sacrifices made in WWII, for example. They are also capable, as jurors, of dealing with complex decisions with serious outcomes.

Interactive Democracy may be seen, in some ways, as a coming of age: Instead of being ruled, the electorate begin ruling themselves.

Do MPs Represent Voters' Views?

A cornerstone of Parliamentary Democracy is that the elected represent the views of the electorate. Do they really? If so, how do they know what is the view of the majority of their constituents on any one issue?

Though MPs may take heed of the views of those people who attend their surgeries (the typical voter?) and many others that they talk to, that isn't the same as discovering the majority view. In fact it would be impossible to gather that information by conversation alone given the vast range of issues and the fact that a statistically significant sample will typically run to hundreds if not thousands of people, chosen to represent the wider demographics.

Do MPs instigate opinion polls in their constituencies? Very, very rarely!

Sure, electorates exert some pressure on their MPs when it's time for re-election, but who wins may have more to do with personal like ability than policy.... and which of many policies does the vote express an opinion on? How many voters even know how their candidates voted on any particular issue?

Interactive Democracy will give a far truer representation of the electorate's view - put simply, it asks them!

Newspapers in the Modern World

For Interactive Democracy to work there must be the opportunity for people to absorb different points of view. Traditionally the newspapers had a massive influence on peoples votes but that may be changing with multiple TV and Radio news stations and now the Internet. Even emailed Newsletters and Blogs may be powerful tools for credible leaders to convey their message. All of this devolution of influence means that the electorate are better informed and less biased than ever before.

Leadership and Interactive Democracy

In the previous post I mentioned that Paddy Ashdown had called into question the ability of the electorate to make the 'right' choice. My view is that it is the role of leaders to explain what the 'right' choice is.

On the "Question Time" programme Paddy suggested that if it was put to the electorate we may well see the return of hanging, for example.

A leader may say "Imagine your DNA was found at a crime scene, you don't have an alibi, but someone matching your description was seen leaving the crime scene. You knew the victim, in fact you'd argued with him recently. You are about to be hung... only you know you are innocent.

"Imagine it wasn't you but your daughter with the noose around her neck!"

The Internet generation may even view a hanging on You Tube (it looks/feels like murder to me). They may look up and view Michael Portillo's programme about humane killing (a BBC programme I think) and find statistics on miscarriages of justice. Maybe TV companies would show their back catalogue of such films in the weeks leading up to a vote on the subject. And air time would be given to Paddy and his opposition politicians.

The Electorate Get It Wrong!

Recently, on the BBC's "Question Time", I heard Paddy Ashdown say that the electorate sometimes get it wrong. I'm sure the minority of voters in many elections think that the majority have made a mistake, and I'm sure that many leaders, especially those with the type of detailed knowledge that Paddy has, despair over the lack of insight that the general population display. The problem is, Who decides what is right and wrong? How do we check that it's wrong?And if it becomes evident that it's wrong, How do we change it?

Every democratic system needs to answer these questions and perhaps there's something to be learned from the DMAIC cycle and TQM in general, which considers customer (voter?) satisfaction as the guiding light.

Thinking in Packs

• It is natural for humans and many other animals to want to be part of the group. This can lead to an acceptance of attitudes, values and decisions and means that we may not be quite as independent as we thought. We may even act in accordance with the group despite disagreeing with it. Party politics can thrive on these social pressures but Interactive Democracy provides some balance:

1. By involving the wider community in political decision making.
2. By allowing party members to secretly vote against the party in a referendum (on each issue).

Nevertheless, political parties still have their role in selecting and promoting prospective members of Parliament and Government.

Fallible Brains

Psychologists may be able to itemise all of the different ways in which our minds play tricks on us and lead us to poor decisions (remember Mrs Clinton's "miss-speak", her husbands denial or Mr Blair's 40 minute claim). Evidently the greatest political minds make astonishing mistakes. Undoubtedly, some of the population are more fallible than others, but does this undermine our ability to make good collective decisions in Interactive Democracy?

It may be that in some circumstances taking a measure of the choices of a large diverse population is less susceptible to brain error than in a small integrated population like the House of Commons where social pressures may contribute to bad decisions. To some extent this is detailed in "The Lucifer Effect" by Philip Zimbardo and James Surowiecki's altogether different book, "The Wisdom of Crowds".

Group Think

Psychologists are clear that groups can behave in ways that are sometimes brutal, immoral and irrational; ways that wouldn't normally be considered by most individuals. It is more likely when decisions are made by a small insular group of similar people, under stress and with a dominant leader, such as a Cabinet with an autocratic Prime Minister. This is a potential problem for Democracy and is countered by various social apparatus: a free press, competing political parties, Parliament, an independent judiciary, a police force that applies the law with integrity and of course, Elections. It is also countered by mature and thoughtful Ministers who genuinely look towards their electorate as the seat of their power and seek information from a variety of sources in order to make decisions.

In a diverse society, Interactive Democracy offers another safeguard to Group Think, improved by people voting in private and without peer pressure.

The Lucifer Effect - Group Think

In his book "The Lucifer Effect", Philip Zimbardo describes how context and situation can lead normal, healthy, well balanced and intelligent individuals to perpetrate horrendous outrages on others. It is a type of Group Think. Perhaps one of the advantages of Interactive Democracy is that this is unlikely to happen when power is in the hands of many divergent people - the electorate. Maybe it is more likely when power is held by a small clique without democratic controls, insulated from the outside world?

Mistakes

We all make mistakes, regardless of how clever we are. Which is exactly why power shouldn't reside within a small group of similar people and why there should be checks and balances. Interactive Democracy gives more power to the electorate but maintains the role of Parliament.

The Public Whip

This site enables you to track the attendance and voting patterns of members of Parliament and the House of Lords. It also allows you to research votes you are interested in.

Mobile Democracy

This link has information about the application of mobile technologies to democracy, the advantage being that more people may use the system if it is more convenient.

Wiki Democracy - Groups Crafting Documents

You may have seen Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. One of the things that makes it interesting is that anyone can edit it without needing to know a great deal about creating web documents.

Wiki software may have great benefits for anyone wanting to write collective documents. Parliament for instance!... An idea that is being addressed with experiments occurring in a number of different locations around the world (for more information see this link). This may aid the development of laws if this type of system was utilised in the democratic process, adding to transparency if everyone could view the development of documents on-line. People may then contact their MPs to suggest amendments!

eDemocracy

This site links to some interesting initiatives. For example:

• WikiDemocracy in Italy, where people can collectively write the parties program.


• New Zealand police let the public write the law.

Mastering the Web Master

The web master has special powers that may be used to manipulate the content and presentation of the ID site. It is therefore sensible for their actions to be monitored by a Parliamentary Committee with suitable powers. The manipulation of the system in order to effect a vote is a serious issue and should carry a criminal charge.

Accurate accountability may be facilitated by automatic logging of changes to the ID site which could be traced to individual Web Masters using their personal log in name and password. The log in details may also limit individuals access to some areas of the system.

A complaints procedure where any member of the public can contact the Parliamentary Committee directly would provide a separate level of monitoring.

What's the pay off for voting?

Does your vote change anything? If you didn't vote, would it make a difference to the outcome?... You are one in about 40 000 000 voters!

For me the idea that my knowledge and experience are contributing to a better overall decision is the reason to vote, yet I find it hard to apply knowledge and experience to choosing a politician. After all it is quite difficult to judge how someone may act in the future, in a job they have never done before, reacting to unforeseen circumstances, and much easier to decide your position on issues such as the smoking ban or fox hunting.

... and if I don't have an opinion, why should I vote?

Click here for "People as Transistors"

Interactive Democracy, Hijacked by the Party

Politicians and party members may both create proposals and vote using Interactive Democracy. They may even vote cohesively in order to have a bigger effect. Party members are the people who are most involved in politics and I would expect them to to campaign for support for their chosen ID policies as vociferously as for their party in a general election.

Should party members refuse to tow the party line in an ID vote, they will be free from coercion as their votes are confidential.

Herd Instinct and Market Forces

When you see a queue for a restaurant would you consider it evidence that it's worth a visit? This type of thinking is pervasive in marketing, indeed all of human life. Some would say the it leads to the irrational exuberance of boom (and bust).

Such forces of attraction are inevitable in Interactive Democracy (indeed any democracy) and may attract people to vote on popular issues. A counterbalance to voter apathy. Just like the restaurant, once there, they make their own choice from the menu and vote as they please.

It's also a reason not to have running totals on the voting system, in order to avoid bias.

Can Spin Be Good?

I recently watched Nigel Lawson interviewed on Newsnight as part of a panel of economic experts commenting on how the Bank of England should set interest rates. Nigel commented that the politicians were doing their job when they said that 'all was well' with the economy, presumably because doom mongers can spread panic which becomes a self fulfilling prophecy within the markets.

Does this mean that spin can be good?

Given that the first rule of power is "hold on to power" (in order to do all the "good" things you want to do) how much more spin goes on? For example, is it right and correct to down play crime to assuage the fear of crime? Is it right to talk up the numbers of arrests as a deterrent to criminals?

Fundamentally, how much of government is about creating a feel good factor?... And where does this leave truth and democracy?