Let's start a People's Party

[Peoples Party]

With confidence in elected MPs at an all time low, I believe we have a unique opportunity to completely overhaul the political system, particularly in view of advances in Information Technology and the internet. For this reason I propose the formation of a People’s Party in the purest sense of the words – a party whose policies will be dictated by the electorate.

Under the current system, we have the opportunity to vote every four or five years for the political party we think will act in our best interests. But once in parliament, most MPs vote the way their party tells them to vote, rather than focusing on what the people who voted for them want them to do. If we are unhappy with their performance, then we can vote for a different party in the next general election.

I believe that the people of this country should be able to have a say in EVERY major decision taken in Parliament and at a local level, and through the People’s Party MPs they will be able to do that by means of a confidential online vote.

The People’s Party will not tell their members which way to vote in Parliament. Their MPs will vote in line with the majority decision of the constituency they represent. I believe this is democracy in its purest form, and we now have the technology available to make this possible.

I am looking for like-minded people who would be interested in supporting and developing this project, and taking it forward, to give the general public a say not only in the next general election, but in all major decisions taken in Parliament following the election which affect them.


Are you with me? Let's hear what you think


Duncan

[LA]

Populist parties are of no use

[Peoples Party]

True "Populist" parties should be the voice of the people, not the voice of a self-serving few

[Ronald Reagan]

Populist parties are of no use

Agreed.

[Peoples Party]

Perhaps you would care to back that up with some evidence. I don't believe there ever has been a "Popular" party in the truest sense. We now have the technology to make this possible.

[JAMC]

Populist parties are of no use

In the sense of classical populism, yes.

However, this idea (leave the method of implementation to one side for a second) has some merit. We are at a point in terms of technological advances where the concept of "representation" is no longer required.

[Ronald Reagan]

In the sense of classical populism, yes.

However, this idea (leave the method of implementation to one side for a second) has some merit. We are at a point in terms of technological advances where the concept of "representation" is no longer required.

I think that represenation is necessary to an organised society. If we had a direct democracy it would be way to hard to maintain and keep up with.

[LA]

Populism can be described as Stupid Majoritarianism.
The reason I say this is because firstly not every one agrees, which means you will go with the majority to ensure the most are happy.
Secondly, people collectively are stupid and do not understand the inner workings of various aspects of public policy.

[Ronald Reagan]

Populism can be described as Stupid Majoritarianism.
The reason I say this is because firstly not every one agrees, which means you will go with the majority to ensure the most are happy.
Secondly, people collectively are stupid and do not understand the inner workings of various aspects of public policy.

Agreed. You have to remember that it isn't as simple as it sounds.

[JAMC]

I think that represenation is necessary to an organised society.

If the people no longer require someone to represent their views because they can now register those views directly to a central point - why is representation necessary?

If we had a direct democracy it would be way to hard to maintain and keep up with.

How so?

[JAMC]

Populism can be described as Stupid Majoritarianism.
The reason I say this is because firstly not every one agrees, which means you will go with the majority to ensure the most are happy.
Secondly, people collectively are stupid and do not understand the inner workings of various aspects of public policy.

A populist is someone who cannot master the art of debate, and cannot convince others of the merits of his own position.

Either because his own position has no merits - in which case, who cares?

Or because he is incapable of decent, persuasive argument, and is therefore unsuited to politics.

[Peoples Party]

Populism can be described as Stupid Majoritarianism.
The reason I say this is because firstly not every one agrees, which means you will go with the majority to ensure the most are happy.
Secondly, people collectively are stupid and do not understand the inner workings of various aspects of public policy.

SO you would deny people democracy because they are "stupid"? I am sure they would be interested to hear that when the major parties are knocking on their doors asking for their "vote" Besides which, look at the mess we are in thanks to those who understand these inner workings.....

[Peoples Party]

A populist is someone who cannot master the art of debate, and cannot convince others of the merits of his own position.

Either because his own position has no merits - in which case, who cares?

Or because he is incapable of decent, persuasive argument, and is therefore unsuited to politics.

I am sure there are many who maybe through struggle to put their point over perhaps to someone with a more outgoing personality, but this does not make his or her point less valid....

I have watched many a political "debate" but however good each one is at arguing their postition, how often do you see someone stand up and say "Oh you are right actually, I hadn't thought of that. I've changed my mind on that one" No, I think pride and political point -scoring rather than reason are the keys on such occasions

[JAMC]

I am sure there are many who maybe through struggle to put their point over perhaps to someone with a more outgoing personality, but this does not make his or her point less valid....

I have watched many a political "debate" but however good each one is at arguing their postition, how often do you see someone stand up and say "Oh you are right actually, I hadn't thought of that. I've changed my mind on that one" No, I think pride and political point -scoring rather than reason are the keys on such occasions

I should point out that I was talking about populist politicians, not the public in general.

So far I've not heard a convincing argument suggesting your proposal wouldn't work in principle.

[Peoples Party]

I should point out that I was talking about populist politicians, not the public in general.

So far I've not heard a convincing argument suggesting your proposal wouldn't work in principle.

Thanks for that. Actually the only argument against it I can think of what Churchill said - "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" But then he didn't know how the internet would revolutionise the world

Politicians talk of connecting with people, understanding the concerns of the people, being "in touch" - so if they truly "represent" people, then why not allow us a direct influence on every major decision they take? As you say, do we really need that representation any more, or do we rather need a system which puts into practice what the majority want?

[DTE]

Thanks for that. Actually the only argument against it I can think of what Churchill said - "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" But then he didn't know how the internet would revolutionise the world

Politicians talk of connecting with people, understanding the concerns of the people, being "in touch" - so if they truly "represent" people, then why not allow us a direct influence on every major decision they take? As you say, do we really need that representation any more, or do we rather need a system which puts into practice what the majority want?

You've definitely got a point here PP, with advances in technology direct democracy is now possible. Of course that throws up a whole host of other problems, it would be possible for decision making process to move incredibly quickly, quicker than people would be able to deal with, and there is something to be said for communicating face-to-face, as it encourages a semblence more honesty. But it would certainly help to engage more young people in democracy if you could Tweet your political thoughts.

The system we have now is based on the workings of this country 300 years ago. With advances like video conferencing, there really is no need for power to be so centralised to Westminster.

[Peoples Party]

You've definitely got a point here PP, with advances in technology direct democracy is now possible. Of course that throws up a whole host of other problems, it would be possible for decision making process to move incredibly quickly, quicker than people would be able to deal with, and there is something to be said for communicating face-to-face, as it encourages a semblence more honesty. But it would certainly help to engage more young people in democracy if you could Tweet your political thoughts.

The system we have now is based on the workings of this country 300 years ago. With advances like video conferencing, there really is no need for power to be so centralised to Westminster.

Exactly Dr. The Evidence. I don’t think we need representation as such any more, not now that we have the technology to almost instantly communicate exactly what it is that we want. We just need a group of people in Parliament elected by us whose only job would be to put the majority decision into practice.

I need to hear other views on this, but what I have envisaged is a central website notifying what decisions are coming up for vote and when, either at a local Government level or at Parliament, and then allow people to post their views and arguments on these, and a time limit for voting. How each individual has voted need never be published, just the overall results – how many have voted and how.

I am no computer expert but I know this would take a complex IT system to control all of this. Perhaps we could divert funds being wasted on the NHS IT system?

I would like to make the point that I am not in favour of abolishing Parliament or the voting system as it stands, as I believe people always need an alternative to vote for. What I would like to see is as many seats as possible both in parliament and local government taken by people whose only policy will be to do exactly what those who elected him or her want.

[LA]

Though we can use technology to actively create direct democracy, many others use technology... cough cough hackers and criminals.

I think moving politics to the internet would be an absolutely stupid thing to do, exactly for that reason.

[DTE]

I concede you have a point LA. But using technology would allow MPs to spend more time in their constituencies, actually doing things to help the people they represent. I'm not sold on voting via the internet because of the obvious security concerns, but debating could happen.

[LA]

I concede you have a point LA. But using technology would allow MPs to spend more time in their constituencies, actually doing things to help the people they represent. I'm not sold on voting via the internet because of the obvious security concerns, but debating could happen.

The only way I think this could work is if we had Internet II.
By that I mean a secondary internet for Parliamentary Offices, Westminster and Whitehall [and other parliamentary buildings].

It should have ABSOLUTELY NO connections to other forms of networks.


However, for this to work it would also need a specialist brand of operating system and computer hardware.

So really, to achieve this I would cost billions upon billions upon billions.

[Peoples Party]

Hackers and criminals are something society has to face in all walks of life. I don't think this should cause us to dismiss the idea though. And not all actual voting has to be done on the internet. Not everyone has access to the internet, but how about TV? An individual password and then "vote with the red button." Then there is postal voting, or voting at established government offices around the country - I don't claim to have all the answers, I am here to listen to what other people can up with. And I am certainly not wanting to turn this into a Political X-Factor, I am just looking for ways people can express what they want.

[LA]

I think the easiest way is to keep the system we have now.
But have in place the ability for the people to remove their representatives from office.

[Peoples Party]

That what we have now, every four or five years Liberal Authoritarian, and look where it has got us. I feel it is time for people to have their say, every step of the way.

[LA]

That what we have now, every four or five years Liberal Authoritarian, and look where it has got us. I feel it is time for people to have their say, every step of the way.

No, what we have right now is elections.

We don't have any protocol or system to remove them from office.
i.e. I hate Bob Russell so I get a petition of 10% [for example] of his constituency. As a result, that 10% forces a by-election.

I want that in Britain!
I also want initiatives...

[JAMC]

Thanks for that. Actually the only argument against it I can think of what Churchill said - "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter" But then he didn't know how the internet would revolutionise the world

Any argument about the average voter being too stupid to be trusted with any kind of decision making is undermined by two things;
1. We have universal sufferage under the current system - the fact that many choose not to exercise this right is not due primarily to lack of understanding, but a disengagement from the political options on offer.
2. Individuals that start out knowing very little within a system of this kind will over time become educated, because the electorate as a whole will inevitably vote for things that will prove in the long run to be undesirable or dangerous. We should not try to protect people from themselves - let them make mistakes, and learn from them.

Politicians talk of connecting with people, understanding the concerns of the people, being "in touch" - so if they truly "represent" people, then why not allow us a direct influence on every major decision they take? As you say, do we really need that representation any more, or do we rather need a system which puts into practice what the majority want?

Personally I would prefer a system whereby we're not reliant on "representatives" honoring the will of the people as expressed in whatever electronic format.
a) there is no point in employing someone as a representative if the way they will act can be determined electronically in advance (assuming they stick to the "I will do as I'm told" rule)
b) there is a possibility that the representative, assuming that they are not legally required to adhere to the electronic results, will deviate from them - either through personal disagreement with the views expressed, or for 'other' motives.

I could forsee a system in which the house of commons was reformed to work on a Google Page Ranking basis, and the public 'veto' in whatever electronic guise replaced the house of lords - in effect each act of parliament must be ratified by referrendum. I could forsee the parliament act being scrapped should this arise.

[JAMC]

The only way I think this could work is if we had Internet II.
By that I mean a secondary internet for Parliamentary Offices, Westminster and Whitehall [and other parliamentary buildings].

It should have ABSOLUTELY NO connections to other forms of networks.


However, for this to work it would also need a specialist brand of operating system and computer hardware.

So really, to achieve this I would cost billions upon billions upon billions.

There is already a secure government "internet". But I believe this would be excessive with regards to security.

After all, the purpose is to make the service as widely available to the public as possible - imposing restrictions on OS and hardware is of no value IMO.

[LA]

There is already a secure government "internet". But I believe this would be excessive with regards to security.

After all, the purpose is to make the service as widely available to the public as possible - imposing restrictions on OS and hardware is of no value IMO.

I don't want ordinary people to access the Internet II because it would then become entirely pointless and might as well use the normal internet.

Using the internet for voting and "engaging in the democratic process" as outlined in this thread cannot work.

[JAMC]

I don't want ordinary people to access the Internet II because it would then become entirely pointless and might as well use the normal internet.

Using the internet for voting and "engaging in the democratic process" as outlined in this thread cannot work.

If we're going to reach out to the public, then would it not make sense to use the 'public' internet for this as opposed to the government secured one?

I don't get why you deem it necessary to have this on a closed network.

[LA]

If we're going to reach out to the public, then would it not make sense to use the 'public' internet for this as opposed to the government secured one?

I don't get why you deem it necessary to have this on a closed network.

Hackers, viruses worms... etc

If you were to have such an important system on "an internet" you would certainly need a way to protect it. The only way of doing so is having a closed network unattached to the current internet.

[JAMC]

Hackers, viruses worms... etc

A hacker is simply someone attempting to gain unauthorized access to an area of a given system or a restricted resource. It is possible for someone to act this way if they are granted any level of access to the system at all.

My point is - running the system on a closed network does not guarantee an absence of hackers and viruses, because both these things depend on a) the willingness of the userbase to obey the rules and b) the competency of the userbase to ensure that nothing can be inadvertently introduced.

If you were to have such an important system on "an internet" you would certainly need a way to protect it. The only way of doing so is having a closed network unattached to the current internet.

Which would prevent the public using it, therefore nullifying the reason for its existence.

[LA]

A hacker is simply someone attempting to gain unauthorized access to an area of a given system or a restricted resource. It is possible for someone to act this way if they are granted any level of access to the system at all.

My point is - running the system on a closed network does not guarantee an absence of hackers and viruses, because both these things depend on a) the willingness of the userbase to obey the rules and b) the competency of the userbase to ensure that nothing can be inadvertently introduced.

I can picture MP's and civil servants hacking in :P
Damn those Parliamentary hackers

Which would prevent the public using it, therefore nullifying the reason for its existence.

We come to the final result as I stated above.

"Using the internet for voting and "engaging in the democratic process" as outlined in this thread cannot work."

[JAMC]

I can picture MP's and civil servants hacking in :P
Damn those Parliamentary hackers

Considering the number of users on the current "government internet" is likely to be in 5 figures - it's not inconceivable that a small number may be up to no good.

We come to the final result as I stated above.

"Using the internet for voting and "engaging in the democratic process" as outlined in this thread cannot work."

The bottom line is that you're imposing a precondition that is not necessary. A service that is intended primarily for public use cannot be on a private network. There is no reason in my view why the service could not be made secure (well, secure enough) over the public internet.

[LA]

No such thing as secure enough.

If someone really wanted access, they can get it - That is the huge problem with the internet. Remember the bloke who gained access to the American Governments network?
[Thought I would give a well known incident]


The fact is, the internet is not secure.

[Peoples Party]

I don't want to concentrate too much here on the mechanics of voting and the internet, what I want to highlight is the concept - we are able to consult with the electorate in a way that was impossible just a few years ago, and it is time to give the public a voice and a real influence on how they want their country to be run.

[LA]

Actually I am starting to see light. If the public had more choice we would not be in the EU and we would have a strict immigration policy...

I am starting to like this direct democracy...

[Peoples Party]

We probably wouldn't have gone to war against Iraq either. Whatever the case, when the various points of view for and against have been put forward, each one of us can make a considered decision and vote.

The majority decision would hold sway, not the decision of a few claiming to represent the many.....