Cohesive Society

If everyone had the same values and believed in pretty much the same things, then society would be much more cohesive. But we don't!

Interactive Democracy is all about debating and voting on individual issues and this process can be an educative one, building empathy amongst individuals for others with different points of view and perhaps building respect for the majority decision.

Manchester Congestion Charge

1.03 million people were reported as having voted in a local postal referendum about congestion charging in Manchester, which would effect the conurbation of about 2.5 million people. Of the 1.94 million voters this amounts to a response rate of 53.2%.

79% were against and The Guardian suggests that Cambridge, Bristol and Leeds are now likely to drop their congestion charge plans.

For a Guardian report please click here.

The Power of Authority

In the post war years the Yale University psychologist Stanley Milgram set up experiments that were to lead to an understanding of how individuals could be driven to hurt other people when authorised to do so. Their shocking observations were that about 60 to 65% of us would cause pain to others, despite our better judgment, if encouraged to do so by an authority figure.

Authority is essential for leadership and leadership is an essential ingredient of Interactive Democracy. But in the ID system the gravitas of government or the amplitude of media opinion leaders are somewhat balanced by individual experts who can genuinely claim to know the subject that is up for consideration. Their authority comes not from holding office over all things but through close attention to one.

Undermining Party Finance

Interactive Democracy gives more power to the electorate and less to the political parties. I suspect that this would cause a serious switch of political funding towards campaigns on issues and away from the traditional parties. But would this strangle them?

Political Parties are still important in the ID system. They contribute to Parliament and can become the government. So they still have influence and, I assume, would still garner support and funding. However, if a lack of funding became a major issue for the survival of the parties a debate could be raised about alternative methods of support. Something that has been done in many countries around the world.

This Radio 4 programme debates political funding.

Political Finance

Cash for honours??? Cash for influence may be a more serious issue?!

Laws have been developed to limit the influence of political donors but there's a sneaking suspicion amongst the public that deals done on millionaires yachts may have a pernicious influence. Would Interactive Democracy, and its re-balancing of democratic power, have a detrimental effect on party funding? Would wealthy individuals decide instead to create a campaign for laws that benefited them? Would they spend thousands on advertising to persuade us to vote for their proposals?

I suspect they would. But I don't think it would be such a bad thing. In fact it could be a great contribution to debate and would likely be far more obvious to the public than today's opaque political money go round.

How to decide when to hold a referendum

Interactive Democracy is a system of referendums, but, as mentioned in the previous post, it isn't suitable for all situations facing the country. Here are some criteria for holding a referendum.

Referendums should not be held if:

1. The information is secret.
2. The situation is extremely complex - beyond the understanding of the typical juror (man on the street).
3. Immediate action is required.
4. The action required must be kept secret to be effective.

Referendums should be held if:

1. The decision requires a social value judgement.
2. The decision is best arrived at by an expression of individual wants or needs.

It would be sensible if parliament decided if each individual issue should go to referendum or if they, or the government, should have the final say. They will be held to account in the General Election.

The Government Knows What's Best For Us

Is it the case that government knows what's best? Undoubtedly this is true some of the time, because they have access to information and expertise that isn't generally available, or even understandable, by the general population. Witness the recent financial earthquakes or consider the importance of secret military intelligence.

The government needs to be in a position to take decisions in situations where Interactive Democracy will be ineffective and only they can decide when to employ their powers. However, this "emergency" response is balanced by Parliaments inspection and by the voting rights of the general public to sack them at the next general election, or even call for resignations sooner.

Sacking Ministers

In some circumstances the public may well call for the dismissal of ministers. I don't believe that the opposition parties will be perpetually manipulating the Interactive Democracy system to this end, as such a contrivance will be obvious to the general public who will then be in a position to hold them in contempt at the next election... or make an immediate counter claim through the ID process. The dismissal of ministers will only occur if the majority think it correct.

Precipitating a General Election

Growing disillusionment with the government may be expressed through Interactive Democracy and, in theory, could reach the stage of demanding a General Election. I doubt if the joint opposition parties would be in a perpetual state of trying to trigger such an election (through the ID votes of their party members), otherwise they could expect the same "compliment" if they took office. However, news of government mistakes or incompetency may trigger a wider demand for change.

Pressure Groups, Safety Valve

Interactive Democracy creates an avenue for pressure groups, from Animal Rights Advocates to Zoologists, to place their suggestions in front of the electorate. It gives them an opportunity to change the law if they can generate enough support.

Some groups find access to the Parliamentary process difficult and are tempted towards criminal action to achieve their aims. In this case, Interactive Democracy provides a useful safety valve; an easy route to re-engage with the political process.

David Davis - Debating Freedom

David Davis recently won his seat after resigning from parliament and triggering a byelection that he hoped would debate British freedoms. He layed out his concerns:

“We will have the most intrusive identity card system in the world, a CCTV camera for every 14 citizens, and a DNA database bigger than that of any dictatorship, with thousands of innocent children and a million innocent citizens on it.

“We've witnessed a sustained assault on jury trials, that bulwark against bad law and its arbitrary abuse by the state; shortcuts with our justice system that have left it both less firm and less fair -- and the creation of a database state, opening up our private lives to the prying eyes of official snoopers and exposing our personal data to careless civil servants and criminal hackers."

But did the byelection actually debate the point(s)? Or did the electorate vote for David Davis the man with convictions (unopposed by Labour or Lib Dem candidates)?

Peculiarly our whole electoral system has always required a database of voters. It is at the core of every modern democracy. I would rather this was used to facilitate votes (plural) on the points (plural) that he raised using the Interactive Democracy system instead of using the blunt instrument of a by-election.

Too Much Choice

The links below highlight the idea that choice isn't always good. They detail studies that seem to indicate that too much choice actually decreases our happiness and suggest that buying agents (estate agents, financial advisers etc.) can make purchases more satisfying by reducing our choice. They also present evidence that given too much choice many people decide not to choose, because it's all just too complicated.

This highlights a concern with Interactive Democracy: There may be too many ideas presented, especially at the "seconding", ePetition stage, for most people to be able to choose the best.

However, it should be the role of Parliament to discuss and refine the ideas that surround each issue in order to present a limited choice to voters, by referendum.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/economy/july-dec03/paradox_12-26.html

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=6127548813950043200

Regional Assemblies

Today there is a distinct unevenness to the voting by MPs in the House of Commons and Regional Assemblies, with Scottish MPs able to vote on English Law but not vice versa. Interactive Democracy easily solves this problem by allowing all MPs to contribute to drafting laws for their constituents on a national or regional basis, as is appropriate.

Citizens' Initiatives

According to this petition on the No. 10 system, Switzerland, Hungary and 24 States in America operate Citizens' Initiatives. These require the government to offer a referendum when a substantial number of citizens have signed a petition... which is also what Interactive Democracy is designed to do.

More from Wikipedia here.

This link is about the European Citzens Initiative.

Regional Government

In some ways regional governments may be at the forefront of utilising Interactive Democracy: Scotland's Parliament has a system of studying topics raised by petitions.

View Again

A number of web sites provide view again facilities for TV programmes. This gives voters another tool for easy research and perhaps multiplies the power of the TV stations and their editors in effecting votes!

As our broadband capacity speeds up and digital storage capacity expands the view again facility may become even greater in the future.

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).