Group Polarisation

Group polarisation is the tendency for individuals to make more extreme decisions when they are in a group than when asked to decide on their own. This may be because of social influences within the group or may be because new arguments are heard that reinforce preconceptions and counter arguments are downplayed due to confirmation bias.

Group polarisation was first termed "risky shift" as groups made riskier decisions than lone individuals. Psychological experiments later showed that individuals in groups tended to become more prejudiced and jury members tended to award greater damages than what they would have decided alone.

While Interactive Democracy could conceivably suffer from some group polarisation, it may be less effected than party politics as it involves more individuals without affiliations to pre-existant groups.

While ePetition suggestions may be far flung, the tendency towards extremism can be thwarted by a limited referendum choice, carefully considered by Parliament.

Confirmation Bias

Confirmation bias is a tendency to interpret information that confirms preconceptions and avoids information that contradicts beliefs. It is a problem in any debate, but is it more of an issue for Interactive Democracy, when so many people who aren't used to making tough decisions are involved in voting on individual issues?

I suspect that confirmation bias is a significant factor in deciding to vote for "your" party in a Parliamentary Election. It may be less of a problem in Interactive Democracy when votes are cast on narrow issues on which people don't have preformed opinions.

Blame the Government?

The BBC reports that, amongst other things, robbery with knives is up 18%. There is some discussion of our economic woes causing an increase in crime, as people struggle to make ends meet. Many commentators blame the government, but it seems to me that the government can't be blamed for "bad eggs", but can be encouraged to do something about them. I hope that Interactive Democracy will help create an involved society in which we all feel some responsibility for society.

Faith in Leaders

Did you see the hope and joy of Barrack Obama's inauguration ceremony and listen to his uplifting speech? Masterful rhetoric.

I wondered if his election promises would be delivered. I wondered if one man could make a difference. I wondered if it takes a powerful personality to change the direction of the enormous machinery of government. I wondered if he could inspire many millions to "ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country". I wondered if his one voice would be heard, and believed, around the world, when, perhaps, the chair of a committee would not. I wondered how realpolitik and unforeseen events would knock him from his path. And I wondered if what I was seeing was the effects of a population that has faith; a population that is desperate to believe that someone will save them.

I don't think that there are any contradictions between leadership and Interactive Democracy. But ID encourages more involvement in society, more effort and less abdication of responsibility to politicians.

Facts or Fictions

How often are opinions reported as fact?

The manipulation of opinion by the twisting of truth is somewhat more insidious problem for democracy than political spin could ever be and I wonder if the full weight of the law shouldn't be brought to bear on every public organisation, the government, politicians and the media, in how they report facts. Of course opinion is welcome. But maybe the public require more than their own intellect to separate the wheat from the chaff?

Perhaps there should be a national authority that would be a first port of call for complaints. This may work like the Advertising Standards Authority with a remit to mediate complaints, giving people and organisations the opportunity to correct or prove their statements, before cumbersome legal proceedings are brought.

I suspect that a demand for legal accountability would not result in a mass of convictions, but would help to wash away shoddy reporting and reinforce the value of news.

"Not in my back yard!"

From my office window I can look across a wooded valley to hills rising to 600m above sea level. It's a lovely view. But there are plans a foot to build enormous great wind turbines on the top. We received the first consultation news letter from the developer this morning, as did, I presume, every household in the area. It included a web address for more information.

With its postcode segmenting ability, Interactive Democracy could facilitate a vote by local residents on just such a plan. I imagine that many people would cast their votes quickly, but may change them in the future as the shock wears off and they are better able to way up the pros and cons: jobs, environment, the scale of the visual impact, etc. This could be an interesting measure of PR success or failure for the developer or their exponents and may motivate their campaign.

Personally I'd vote for the turbines, I just wish I was given the chance.

"We don't do God!"

When Prime Minister Tony Blair was asked a question about belief, Alistair Campbell memorably clarified "We don't do God!". Yet, on leaving office, Tony was confirmed as a Catholic.

Is it disingenuous for politicians to hide their beliefs or is it sensible that they separate politics from religion? Should they always give full and honest answers to questions? We should demand their honesty!

Interactive Democracy involves everyone, both faithful and faithless. It also potentially removes the need for the House of Lords and, therefore, the Lord Bishops, so it changes the balance of power that religions have over British politics. But it seems likely to me that the politicians of the future would continue to fudge the God question, in the interests of building votes... er, I mean consensus.

Here's an interesting article from the BBC comparing our system with that of the USA.

Natural Selection and the Evolution of Ideas

The refinement of simple life forms into the complex animals that we see today has been explained by evolutionary biology. In simple terms, diverse changes in organisms have been naturally selected by the need to survive, adapting to a changing environment, changing predators and varying food supplies.

Interactive Democracy encourages diverse ideas to solve social issues and provides a mechanism for selecting those ideas. The selected solutions may throw up new issues that encourage more suggestions for improvement that may then be selected. In this way it encourages social evolution.

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.