You Tube

TV was once the domain of professional broadcasters but You Tube and its brethren allow almost anyone to contribute with video, photographic montage and graphics. Its searchable and ranked format adds immense functionality for anyone researching a subject and there's very little censorship, so you can often see first hand accounts in all their shocking reality. These Internet video systems add another counterbalance to the authority and power of conventional media in effecting election results.

Re-Vote

So...The electorate have decided, but over the coming months, as experience builds or new information comes to light, people become convinced that the decision was wrong or that there could have been a better solution. What would trigger a new vote on the issue?

Interactive Democracy would allow new suggestions, or even the re-submission of old suggestions, that may gain increasing amounts of support and force Parliament to look at the issue again. But there may also be another way: individuals may be able to change their minds after the vote was cast and declare that they had made a mistake, switching to another choice on the ballot 'paper' (web site). This wouldn't have an immediate effect, but once the majority has shifted to a different solution it would trigger Parliament to review the situation and ultimately to call a new referendum.

Is this becoming too complicated? I don't know, but it would be a simple thing to set up in the original design of the ID service, at little extra cost, and may some day be a useful tool within the democratic framework.

Kluge

Gary Marcus is Professor of Psychology at NYU and author of "Kluge: The Happhazard Construction of the Human Mind", which provides some insight into how our brains fail us. The notion that even the greatest political leaders have fallible brains is central to the idea of improving democracy.

Referendum Unreliability

Recently the Irish voted "No" on the new European Treaty of Lisbon. It has been suggested that this wasn't so much a vote against the Treaty as a condemnation of all the prior silliness, injustices and perceived domination by Eurocrats: all those little rules that prevent grocers from selling a pound of potatoes and ensure that our cucumbers are the right shape! In short, there's a risk that votes are "off topic" - a potential problem for all referendum and Interactive Democracy!

However, I contend that by making referendums frequent, people are more likely to vote "on topic", knowing that there will soon be opportunities to pass judgment on other, separate issues.

Moreover, if voters are given the opportunity to set the agenda for referenda, through the ePetition system, "off topic" protest votes are even less likely.

If it's unclear, vote NO

If a bill is presented for referendum and the content is so abstruse that you can't understand it, then why not vote NO? That's one way of telling the politicians to pull their socks up and write it more clearly!

(It may need to be backed up by a document in legalese.)

Legalese

In relation to an Irish referendum on the European Treaty of Lisbon the Irish Independent asked "Why should I vote Yes to a legal document I don't understand?"

Lawyers may be surprised to learn that Joe Bloggs doesn't read any of the law he's expected to comply with and if he did (and managed to stay awake through the process) the chances are he'd be utterly confused. But this doesn't stop us from complying. Or approving of it.

There may be good reason for legalese to eliminate loopholes, but there is also good reason for clarity. It's not impossible: just look at the American Bill of Rights! In my opinion each bill requires a simple and succinct "executive summary", approved by parliament.

Here's an example for the EU Treaty.

Government Initiatives BEFORE Public Support

Interactive Democracy is a slow process best suited to careful consideration of social change... but the world can move at a fast pace!

I think that the elected Government should be able to implement new policies without going through the long winded process of ID. This may be especially important in international diplomacy or solving any type of crisis. However, the electorate should wield the ultimate power in a true democracy and policies should be changed if the government loses a subsequent challenge won through the ID process.

I'd expect the Opposition in Parliament to continue in its role of questioning and challenging the government. Undoubtedly with a view to their own electability and future prospects as the new government.

Hierarchy is Important

We live in a hierarchical society which is essential for getting things done. Interactive Democracy doesn't undermine this structure. The people at the top are best placed to manage and coordinate complex systems and to make sure that individual effort is amplified by collective action rather than dissipated in random directions. However, that does not mean that the people at the top are best placed to understand what the majority wants, or even always what's best for them!... This is where ID comes in.

Designed by Customers

Most businesses would love to have the opportunity for customers to be involved in product development. Especially if everyone was guaranteed to purchase.

Interactive Democracy could be viewed as a system that allows customers (the electorate) to help develop new products (laws). Market research (referendum) is then carried out to ensure that it is what the majority wants, even before it is manufactured (implemented) and there is a guarantee that everyone buys it (tax).

This is very different from having a committee (Parliament) design the product (law).

Government Search Engine

Search engines have a pivotal role on the world wide web and much power because of it. The formula they use for generating search rankings is secret and proprietary and may generate all sorts of biases by accident or design. It is therefore important that the search facility on the Interactive Democracy web site is controlled and approved by parliament and not a commercial add on.

Local Review

Given that voters may be tracked by postcode, reviews of local services may be carried on the Interactive Democracy system. These may generate feedback on police, national health or council services, for example, and the system may be used to measure local support for public works such as by-passes or rail links.

This adds considerably to the value and utility of the ID system infrastructure.

National Review

It would be possible for the Government to use the Interactive Democracy system to involve everyone in National Reviews. For example the government may want suggestions for the National Curriculum in schools. The review may last 1 to 6 months with suggestions organised around topics by the web master as suggestions come in. There may be Government suggestions too and the public could vote their support.

It would be particularly useful, in this example, to allow children to vote and to analyse the votes by age group.

Voting on Tax

Would the electorate always vote for lower taxes, in their own self interest?

Governments need tax revenue to provide the services that voters want. The real question is "Will the voters want to have their cake and eat it?" or will they understand and appreciate the wider perspective; the difficult decisions that must be taken to prioritise the use of scarce resources. Government cannot be held accountable for "delivering" if they haven't been given the appropriate resources. It is a matter of faith that the majority will put aside their self interest for the good of the nation.

Voting on Public sector Pay

Would voters be able to seize control of public sector pay negotiations?

Voters are customers of the public sector. The ability for the majority to directly influence pay may have a subtle impact on the quality of services being offered. On the other hand it may also reduce the likelihood of disruptive and damaging strikes.

Voting On Interest Rates

Would the electorate be able to seize control of the Bank of England Base Rate? First a law would have to be passed to allow it.

This would have a major impact on mortgages and savings, pitting one group against another for economic benefit. However, many voters would also see the big economic picture and be swayed by arguments from economic experts. Others may pass their votes to those they trust, using Liquid Democracy. They may give their votes to various economics professors, politicians or even the Chair of the Bank of England.

A recipe for turmoil you may say. However, the calming balm is that what is good for the economy is good for all of us in the long run.

Destabilising the Economy?

Karl Marx understood that economics always leads politics. He suggested that government can do little to control the business cycle and that trying to delay it would ultimately make slow downs more dramatic and painful.

Would Interactive Democracy have a negative impact on the political/business cycle? Would it undermine "prudent" financial governance and the control of inflation? Would voters demand action to alleviate short term financial pain only to be worse off in the long run?

To my mind this all comes back to good leaders with good arguments persuading voters of their case. Some may say that it is virtually impossible to explain the complexities of economics to the average voter, but credible leaders don't have to, they just need to identify the consequences of any particular decision.

Internet & Democracy

This essay (from Internet & Democracy at Harvard Law School) looks at how the Internet is already effecting democracy. It looks at the "three faces of power", Emerson's "Mechanisms of Power" and is illustrated by a number of examples. Worth a look!

Strike!

The police recently voted for the right to strike after the government cynically refused the independent recommendations of a 2.5% pay increase in order to keep inflation under control. Interactive Democracy offers organisations such as the Police Federation an alternative means of putting pressure on government policy, should they be able to garner sufficient public support.

Strikes are usually a power battle between employers and employees with customers as collateral damage. Interestingly, Interactive Democracy gives more power to public sector customers and may reduce the need for damaging strikes.

Stories and Leadership

The internet encourages the emergence of opinion leaders from any 'level' of society. Personal stories may be one of the best contributions an individual can make to a political debate. Unlike academic arguments, moral posturing or statistics, personal stories convey an immediacy of experience that can carry far more weight and may help root policy in reality.

The conventional media tells some powerful personal stories and is supplemented by blogs and video posts that allow anyone to contribute. (An example is this blog by Adrian Sudbury, which was highlighted by BBC Breakfast TV and seeks to encourage bone marrow donations.)

"...the people have spoken - the bastards!"

In December 2003, BBC Radio's Today Programme solicited ideas from its listeners for a new law. The winning proposal 'to use any means to defend their homes from intruders' was supported by 26000 votes. MP Stephen Pound, who was charged with presenting the proposal to Parliament, denounced it as "ludicrous, brutal, unworkable, bloodstained piece of legislation.... the people have spoken - the bastards!"

The proposal was probably a reaction to the conviction of Tony Martin who shot two intruders, but it highlights some important lessons for Interactive Democracy:

1. Proposals may convey public sentiment on well publicised issues
2. Proposals may not be written to cover loop holes, as we would expect with formal law
3. Proposals may not be based on the full awareness of the present law and may not easily integrate with it (e.g. there is legislation about weaponry)

This highlights the need for Parliamentary review and refinement of proposals. Which may lead to a reaffirmation of the current law or, in this case, perhaps, greater clarification of the legal term "reasonable force".

Elite Civil Servants and Common Experience

Oxbridge graduates dominate the highest echelons of the civil service, in all its varied guises, causing some to worry about a lack of empathy with the less fortunate in society and, in turn, the verasity of policies designed to alleviate depravation. Interactive Democarcy introduces the experience of those at all levels of society to each and every Parliamentary Bill. But it doesn't undermine the hierarchy where the brightests and best educated reach the top.

Hierarchy and Getting Things Done

It is thought by some people that Interactive Democracy undermines the hierarchy that is so essential for large governmental organisations to get things done. But ID is designed to decide what should be done, not how to make it happen. It is then the role of the elected government to work with civil servants to implement the new directive.

Granted, not everything we may like to happen is actually possible, which is why parliament and government must help refine and define the practicable choices that may be eventually put to the electorate. Remember, civil servants are voters too and their input to ID is highly valued. The more senior civil servants may be well placed to contribute to the public debate, via the media, and influence the overall vote. They may also make suggestions in the first stage of Interactive Democracy (Ideas Engine).

Opposition and Parliament

It is not he function of Parliament to govern but to "call to account those that do govern", as Gladstone said in 1869. But it's remarkable to me to consider the recent 10% tax rate debacle, not because the Government, which prides itself both on its working class roots and on its economic stewardship, made such a mistake, but because there was such limited opposition to the policy when it was first announced in the Commons. Was it because the Conservative Party leadership missed its implications or did they say, amongst themselves, "Excellent, we can use that to attack Labour at the next General Election, let's save our opposition until then".

The latter strategy may be sensible for getting into power, but does nothing for preventing ill conceived policies from doing damage: even after amendments, the 10% tax policy leaves some of the poorest worse off. Similarly, if the government steals and implements the oppositions best ideas, they must be discouraged from presenting them in the first place, leaving them and us poorer.

The Interactive Democratic process will enable opposition from the electorate, allowing appropriate and timely criticism and helping to avoid party political power plays that stifle strong ideas and allow poor ones to flourish.

Liquid Leadership

The current political system elects leaders who then apply themselves to every issue in society, regardless of their expertise on the subject.

Interactive Democracy may encourage other leaders to emerge - leaders with particular skills or expertise in a given area. For example, on issues of crime some journalists may want to present the views of Police Superintendents. Others may report the views of leading academics who have studied crime and are impassioned by their research to contribute to the debate. And it may not just be the conventional media that does the reporting. Academics can publish their papers on-line and individuals can blog on their own experiences.

Any organisation with an interest in an issue may lead their members to vote in a particular way, whether they be the Church, the Unions or the Political Parties. But ultimately every individual casts their own secret vote... unless Liquid Democracy is adopted.

Perhaps Liquid Democracy could be adapted to grant your vote to someone who's opinions you respect on certain issues, only when those issues arise at referendum? As a safeguard, the system would then notify you of how they voted.

Tough Love Gone Soft?

Would Interactive Democracy scupper the Bank of England's own brand of tough love? Would the electorate demand control over Interest Rates? Could they demand public sector pay rises? Would they be im-prudent?

Again, the principle of leadership is essential in educating voters to make the most sensible choices. However, if such issues were to be addressed by referendum, its outcome may be less than clear, leaving the markets guessing about the result and separating these issues from Party Politics and electioneering in much the same way that the Bank of England does with Interest Rates today.