Shareholder Unions

It seems to me that individual shareholders will rarely exercise their voting powers because of the difficulties in attending AGMs. As proposed in the previous post, voting via the web, utilising Interactive Democracy, could be a solution. Another idea is to allow the creation of Shareholder Unions. Such a Union may have the perennial objective of limiting super-salaries with voting power commensurate with the number of shares held by all their members.

The practical problem with such an idea is How do you register voting rights when shareholders frequently trade their shares?

One solution is to make it mandatory that pension and Individual Savings Accounts providers integrate their share accounting with a central system able to apportion votes. This sounds much more complex, and expensive, than the one-person-one-vote Interactive Democracy system proposed here.

Another solution would be for pension and ISA providers to offer their commitment against super-salaries, perhaps utilising it as a unique selling proposition in order to stand above their competitors.

http://www.fairpensions.org.uk/filing-shareholder-resolution

Shareholder Democracy

It has been proposed that shareholders should have new powers to veto excessive pay for directors. Some advocate that there should be one-person-one-vote, others one-share-one-vote. The first limits the power of institutional investors, whose own directors may be a part of the super-salary merry-go-round; the second prevents activist share holders, who may buy only one share, from ham-stringing businesses in sectors such as defence, tobacco or pharmaceuticals.

In either scenario it would be feasible for the Interactive Democracy infrastructure to be used, improving the efficiency of shareholder democracy and empowering those shareholders who can't always attend an AGM.

The Iron Lady

I've been wondering for a while now, what aspects of culture foster direct democracy? If the Swiss can do it, why do some people think Brits can't?

One argument is that the Swiss are better educated. But they've been doing direct democracy for 150 years: back then no one was as well educated as the average person today, so we should be more than capable.

Perhaps it's their national service that binds them into a cohesive society? Or their multilingualism that breeds flexibility of thought?

Or perhaps it's our welfare culture that makes us expect to be looked after rather than look after ourselves? Or our aristocratic history that makes us look to an authority for answers?

Is it the political system that creates the culture or the culture that creates the political system?

"The Iron Lady" provides some historical perspective on our culture. In the film, the retired Margaret Thatcher makes two comments about how culture has changed. To paraphrase her, she says "People used to want to do something, now they want to be something"; and "People used to want to know what you thought, now they want to know how you feel". These sentences seem to me to capture some of our changing culture.

Interactive Democracy is more about doing than being. It empowers political activism. And it is more rational than emotional for the simple reason that to advocate your perspective, it's a good idea to explain it. But, on the other hand, people can vote using instinct if they wish.

Bertrand Russell - Plato's Utopia

In "History of Western Philosophy", Bertrand Russell, commenting on Plato's Republic, writes

"But in matters of government it is difficult to know who has the most skill, and very far from certain that a politician will use his skill in the public interest rather than in his own or in that of his class or party or creed."

This succinct appraisal is just as relevant today. Perhaps the main advantage of Parliamentary Democracy is in our ability to dismiss the government, thus exercising a power that tends to keep their interests focused on the public. Yet if the opposition are an unpalatable alternative, or form part of the same political class, much of this effect may be lost. Not so in Interactive Democracy which empowers the public to challenge each policy; and help create them.

ID runs contrary to Plato's ideal of the best politicians, and their descendants, wielding political power in perpetuity, and supplements Parliamentary Democracy's ideal of politicians wielding power until the next election. Instead it requires politicians to persuade us of the justice of their arguments, policy by policy. The best will win.

Swiss Democracy Going Digital

Electronic voting in the national referendum ballot March 2012

Bern, 16.12.2011 - On 16th December for twelve counties the Government approved the use of electronic voting in the ballot timed for 11th march 2012. About 122,000 voters will be able to vote by using the Internet. Already, all of these twelve counties have run tests of Internet voting.

The Government (Bundesrat)

EU Regulation on Citizens' Initiative

This regulation specifies the security structure of a web site for Citizens' Initiatives.

I think that such a system should allow citizens to change their vote in subsequent sessions yet this regulation demands that data should not be alterable. However, such a limitation can be worked around by having the facility for later dated votes to supersede earlier ones.

The ability to change your vote allows voters to cast a vote at a time which is convenient to them and then change it later if they change their mind. It will reduce the information load on the system as a ballot reaches its deadline, will likely increase voting numbers as it makes the system more convenient and facilitates an increasing amount of debate, closer to the deadline, to have the chance to change the outcome.

300 Million Minds....

Just come across this book, which sounds a lot like Interactive Democracy: "300 Million Minds Changing America Piece by Peace", by David Frank.

The Amazon Book Description reads "This book is about a plan to bring Americas 225 year old Republic system into the 21st Century. This new system for America is a result of a vision experienced by David Frank, in 1989. This vision outlined a new system for America using present day Communication Technology. By remapping America to look like a honeycomb, each community, looking like a hexagon, will use present day technology to allow the "people" to start fixing America from the ground-up. The new system will allow the "people," not the politicians, to begin to raise, debate and vote on issues that they believe can make their communities a better place to live. 1000 Technological Townhall Meeting systems across America will utilize the knowledge and brainpower of 300 million people, making the world a better place today, for the children of tomorrow."

Bankrupt Democracy

In a fascinating MoneyWeek article Tim Price wrote "A combination of western governments and those countries' banking sectors is effectively insolvent. The problem is one of democracy itself. The system sows the seeds of its own destruction when a critical mass of voters appreciates that it can vote itself privileges. Politicians who can rarely see further than the next election are happy to provide them. A state of entitlement then sets in, with the wealth-creating private sector crowded out and milked for taxes. In one sense government policy is predestined to fail because, as Mrs Thatcher observed, sooner or later the government runs out of your money."

This may be true for most western governments, but the same problems don't exist in Switzerland, which gives voters much more power. Surely, by Tim's analysis of cause and effect, Swiss voters, in their assumed selfishness, would have crashed their economy sooner. But it remains strong. Why? Because their system integrates everyone into a common society with shared responsibilities and, by being involved in politics, they educate themselves about the issues, the pros and cons, and come to balanced decisions. Interactive Democracy has every chance of doing the same.

("Eurozone governments are now too big to succeed" by Tim Price, MoneyWeek, 25/11/2011)

Diluted Voting Power

Here's a thought: the more voters there are for a given "Parliament" the less powerful each vote is.

According to the UK census of 1951 there were about 50 million citizens. By mid 2010 it was about 62 million. It's expected to reach 70 million by 2027. Assuming, for the sake of simplicity, that the proportion of the population eligible to vote remains the same, in 2010 your vote was worth about 20% less than in 1951 and by 2027 it will have lost another 9%. But, of course, the proportion of the total population who can vote will be much larger in the future, due to the aging population.

OK, this is a simplistic idea. But now consider the effect of giving powers to a federal European government. Now your vote is merely one in a little less than 500 million.

Our increasing powerlessness is the very opposite of the involved and empowered voters I argue for in this blog.

This post was inspired by Prof. Al Bartlett's lecture "Arithmetic, Population and Energy", available on YouTube. Here's the first part of the series:

The Chemistry of Trust

In this lecture, Professor Paul Zak explains the impact of oxytocin on trust and trust worthiness. He has many fascinating insights into the role of this hormone on people's behaviour and how to boost oxytocin levels. Could it be that giving people the right to vote regularly and a voice in the debates, boosts oxytocin among most people, increasing trustworthiness in society and perhaps adding to social cohesion and economic success??

Crazy Empowerment

In this article, Rhodri Marsden comments on the Government's plan to allow 100 000 on-line signatures to precipitate a Westminster discussion of the subject. In particular he thinks it's too easy: "Registering approval or disapproval of anything online requires a few imperceptible finger movements and almost no brain activity."
He also points out that the previous Government's ePetition system would only have promoted Westminster discussion of 8 petitions, and the premise of one of them was clearly wrong.
He goes on to write "Petition schemes make governments look like they're listening and the electorates think they're being listened to, but it's faux-democratic. Proposals hammered out on a keyboard are generally hare-brained and ill thought out, and politicians regard them with the contempt they deserve."
I partly agree with Rhodri, but I applaud the Government's proposals, yet think they don't go far enough. I think that promoting high quality debate is perhaps the most important role of Democracy and the involvement of Parliamentarians on a debating forum, integrated with a voting system, would help to calm Rhodri's misgivings.

Institutions v Collaboration

In this TED talk Clay Shirky highlights the differences between the institution and collaboration, and the way they get things done. In particular he compares the costs and values of each and points out that in a collaborative effort some people contribute a lot and others contribute a little. However, small contributions may make a significant difference. I would expect the same in Interactive Democracy: most of the contributions would come from those that are interested in politics with occasional valuable contributions from others.
Clay also describes how Institutions resist the loss of control that collaborative organisation brings. I would expect the same from Westminster.

Anonymous Agression

Randi Zuckerberg, Marketing Director of Facebook and sister to its founder, Mark, commented to Marie Claire magazine "I think anonymity on the Internet has to go away... I think people hide behind anonymity and they feel like they can say whatever they want behind closed doors." This can result in all sorts of immoral behaviour including cyber bullying, harassment and lying.
On the other hand Richard Hall writes in The Independent "Privacy advocates have condemned plans to remove online anonymity, saying it could make it harder for dissidents in countries with poor human rights records to speak out."
Perhaps our society could benefit from parallel systems: Interactive Democracy would provide a regulated forum for debate, with sanctions against bad behaviour, but providing legal voting power; and commercial organisations could provide a more corruptible but freer network that would allow dissidents to have their say.
Another concern is the control that Facebook and the other web monopolies have over our society and culture, as Rebecca MacKinnon points out here.

The Hidden Influence of Social Networks

This video presented by Nicholas Christakis explores his studies into social networks. Although he mentions voter behaviour, the talk relates to many other areas, in particular the spread of obesity in society.
The power of influence within social networks could go a long way to explain the influence of one political party or another in certain areas of the country. It may also provide some insight into how new ideas, debates and opinions could flow through society. Worth a look as food for thought.

Lewd Leadership

The phone hacking scandal, a boil that has finally burst, runs the risk of missing a central point about how the media provides leadership for our country and our culture. In the case of News of the World, and several other newspapers, they realise that "sex sells" and celebrity sex sells more. So a good number of their stories "out" the private sexual exploits of the rich and famous, celebrities and politicians. They pander to base human instincts and debase our culture in the process: they provide lewd leadership.
Until now the political powers have been feeble in their response, despite the Human Rights Act, which states:

1. "the right to respect for private ... life"
2. "freedom from ... degrading treatment"
3. "the right to liberty"
4. "freedom of assembly and association"
5. "the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property" (including mobile phones?)
   
6. "the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms" (celebrities v general public)
   

To increase the quality of the leadership that the media provide I think it is essential that we curtail their power to exploit and manipulate, while strengthening the sector as a whole. After all, investigative journalists do some good stuff, but enquiries are often expensive with uncertain rewards.
One way of limiting lewd leadership would be to use the Human Rights Act, perhaps as a class action. Another is to limit media monopolies.
To strengthen print news (including electronic print) perhaps we should be considering some sort of financial support from our taxes: despite not paying VAT, some papers run at a loss. Perhaps we should also curtail the BBCs involvement in web-print and focus their attentions on iPlayer services instead, so that newspapers can better compete on the Web and Kindle.
(This post from January comments on phone hacking.)

Inspiring Democracy

"If you treat an individual as he is, he will remain how he is. But if you treat him as if he were what he ought to be and could be, he will become what he ought to be and could be."

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

People worry about the yobs that Interactive Democracy empowers; they worry about the dogmatic, the xenophobic, the narrow minded and the greedy. I think these are a small fraction of the population, insufficient to do any real harm. But Goethe highlights a different argument: that empowering people, involving them in the debate and making them responsible can make them better.
The idea is entertainingly captured in this video of Viktor Frankl, psychiatrist and holocaust survivor, who has seen the worst aspects of human nature yet retains his optimism.

http://www.ted.com/talks/viktor_frankl_youth_in_search_of_meaning.html

Lords Reform

Parliament has been debating the Lords Reform Bill which proposes an 80% elected House of Lords. One point that has been deliberated is the role of the Lords as a revising chamber, tapping into the long experience of its members to scrutinise Bills proposed by Parliament, which is typically composed of younger Members, some of whom may have just won their seats.
If there is a need for a second chamber my suggestion would be that 100% of its members be elected. Elections should be held perhaps a year or two after the general election. Using an online system people could approve or dismiss any number of Lords, with those most highly rated gaining a seat. Each candidate could provide a summary of their views and a categorised CV of their experience. The system could be searchable for certain phrases, for example Conservative, environmentalist, doctor, business man. (This is another example of how Web based Democracy could allow a novel and cost effective way of voting; others may have better ideas of how to use it.)
To limit the number of Lords each Citizen had to pass judgment on the total could be divided up and allocated to geographical areas of equal population size, but different to MP's constituencies so that a "Lord" couldn't claim a stronger mandate than an MP and usurp his authority: Parliament would therefore remain the premier house.
That's not to say that I particularly approve of the House of Lords. Abolishing it would save about £60m a year that I believe would be better spent on Interactive Democracy. I suspect ID would also help to ensure good quality MPs by making them more accountable, and it would provide the facility for people to devolve their votes to ex-MPs, thereby maintaining the involvement of the most experienced politicians. (Devolving your vote means that instead of voting on each issue your self you pass your vote to another MP or ex-MP for them to use as they see fit.)
More from The Guardian here.

Web Lords

In the following video former CNN bureau head, Rebecca MacKinnon, points at how governments, politicians and web providers limit the freedoms available on the web, damaging our free speech. From her perspective Interactive Democracy provides a democratically accountable system that links individuals with their government without depending on the goodwill of the web lords: Facebook, Google, Apple, etc. (Famously, Google's motto is Don't Be Evil.)

The God Complex

In this video Tim Harford (writer of "The Undercover Economist" in the Financial Times) explains the God Complex and the importance of making good mistakes. The idea is that many of us think we understand complex systems, in fact we don't. He suggests that all complex systems evolve from trial and error and that they are way, way, way too complex for any individual to understand. You may be thinking that this blog has a tinge of the God Complex as it seeks to enhance British representative Democracy which has evolved over centuries. But, looking at it another way, Interactive Democracy fosters innovation, change and adaptation by integrating many people's views instead of trusting to a few politicians who, Tim Harford would agree, have tendencies towards the God Complex themselves. Here are some ideas about how ID can foster trial and error:

1. Diverse people foster ideas, debate, learn and innovate.
2. Divorcing politicians from policy allows them to manage the process without getting tied to risky issues that may demolish their careers, in turn freeing-up innovation and trial and error.
   
3. The DMAIC process (Define, Measure, Analize, Improve and Control) provides the framework for measuring the results of each policy and encouraging remedial action
4. Regional decisions foster comparisons so that we can learn from best practice; policy research must gather experiences from abroad.
5. The ID web site can evolve to incorporate new ways of analysis, debate and decision making.

Laughing at Democratic Activists

In this short TED Talk, Maajid Nawaz gives an interesting perspective on the need for bottom up democracy as an international movement. He compares his experiences as a reformed Islamic Extremist with his perception of "complacent", "top-down", "xenophobic" democracies. My preferred perspective is that extremism is about the demand for power by disenfranchised people, unable to participate in debate and therefore condemned to following a narrow interpretation of life.
While his views don't entirely gel with national Interactive Democracy, as he talks about the spread of ideas and narratives across national boundaries, he does provide food for thought.

Referendums

In Comparative Government and Politics, Hague and Harrop review Referendums:
"On the plus side, referendums do seem to increase voters' understanding of the issue, their confidence in their own political abilities and their faith in government responsiveness. Like elections themselves, referendums help to educate the participants.
"But there is a reason for caution. A surfeit of referendums can tire the voters, depressing turnout."
This last comment hits against Interactive Democracy, which proposes frequent referendums, but if the system automatically transfers inactive votes to the local MP (or other approved person), then everyone remains represented whether they are engaged or not.
Hague and Harrop go on to say that "In addition to these difficulties, referendums can easily be hijacked by:

• Wealthy companies waging expensive referendum campaigns on issues in which they have an economic interest;
• Government control over wording as well as timing;
• Intense minorities seeking reforms to which the majority is indifferent."

The last point is addressed by the transfer vote I just mentioned. The second point loses veracity when an effective Parliament agrees timing and wording, and the electorate can recall Parliament or express their ire at the next general election. And, is the first point any worse than what we have today, when politicians can be secretly manipulated by vested interest groups: Interactive Democracy makes wealthy campaigners contribute to the debate, not politicians' coffers. Furthermore, by having a structured system that rationalises the debate, both money and emotion become less powerful than a good argument.

Political Goods

In Comparative Politics Today, Almond, Powell, Strom and Dalton define three levels of Political Goods:-

1. System Level: "The political system is charachterised by regular, stable and predictable processes domestically and internationally... [it] adapts to environmental change and challenges."
2. Process Level: "The political system is open to and responds to a variety of forms of political action and speech, which may directly produce a sense of citizen dignity and efficacy... Citizens fulfill their obligations to the system and comply with public law and policy... Equitable procedure and equality before the law... Processes have intended effects and are no more cumbersome, expensive, or intrusive than necessary."
3. Policy Level: "Growth per capita... health and material goods... distributive equity... safety of person and property... public order and national security... Non-discrimination... protection of vulnerable or disadvantaged citizens... freedom from regulation, protection of privacy and respect for autonomy of other individuals, groups and nations."

I suspect that Interactive Democracy would enhance the System and Process levels, enabling better Policy, as seems to be the case with Direct Democracy in Switzerland. However, the main concerns seem to be that it still requires individuals to drive democratically agreed policy (what if they don't agree with it?) and the majority threatening the liberty of minorities.

• The first qualm is dealt with by making politically accountable ministers responsible for managing change - they can be removed from office if they don't make every effort.
• The second point is dealt with by our acceptance of the European Human Rights Act and our evolved culture of accepting and respecting difference.
• Both benefit from effective national debate.
  

Buying Votes

"... since the 1930s the technique of buying votes with the voters' own money has been expanded to an extent undreamed of by earlier politicians."

Milton Friedman, 1985

What is more, it may be argued that politicians spend money that they borrow to fulfill their promises, leaving future generations to pick up the tab.

Democracy and the Fall of the West

Is democracy as doomed as the Dodo? asks Money Week on reviewing Craig Smith's and Tom Miers' "Democracy and the Fall of the West". Their basic point is "Democracy is no guarantor of liberty because voters often want to take away the liberties of others and will vote accordingly." It's not that they think that the West will crash dramatically but they forecast a "prolonged sunset". This idea runs contrary to Niall Ferguson's idea that the Property Owning Democracy was an essential "killer app." in the rise of the West.

It is clear that there has been no tyranny of the majority in Switzerland, where voters have far more power and responsibility than in other Western Democracies. And the Swiss enjoy one of the highest standards of living of any western country, with a cohesive and supportive society. So I suggest that it isn't Democracy per se that is at fault, but our version of it, corrupted from the ideal of personal responsibility and Citizenship by our disconnectedness from political power and the irresponsibility of spinning, vote hungry politicians.

Smith and Miers suggest that the problem of our expanding welfare system can be dealt with by distributing cash equally to all citizens to spend on welfare services from government or private providers. An interesting idea, though they despair of it ever happening. But it could be an Initiative in Interactive Democracy. However, ID goes further, it distributes political power more equally between citizens (analogous to distributing money in their example) and taps into their creative potential. It encourages innovation, responsibility, learning, adaptability and evolution.

Core News Corp

"If it were left to me to decide whether we should have government without newspapers or newspapers without government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter."

Thomas Jefferson

It seems clear to me that the media is at the core of democracy, but, as in other areas of the real economy, monopolies seldom act for the benefit of customers or, in the case of News Corp, for the benefit of democracy. So, the emergent political will to stand up against the real or imagined power of News Corp is probably a good thing.

But Interactive Democracy offers a whole new necessity for news. Based on the demand for newspapers in Switzerland, I would expect that the introduction of ID would be a boon for newspapers. Perhaps then they wouldn't feel the need to snitch and snicker about celebrities' personal lives in order to fund their existence.