Digital solutions to political reform

Hi Kate, You argue that "we must consider digital contexts for implementing the democratic ideal". When you look at the influence of Facebook as did 4Corners recently, or consider how Trump uses Twitter to bypass traditional media, and many other trends your viewpoint is very compelling. But I vaguely recall a quote that says whether your vegetables etc are delivered in a jaguar or on the back of an old truck, it is the contents of what is being delivered that will improve your health not the mode of delivery. Perhaps if you were dying and needed the delivery of medication most urgently delivery speed becomes a factor and perhaps we are at the point in many parts of the world. When you look at accountability and the snaky, opaque trail of lobbyists' influence, even in Canberra; when you look at social justice issues; when you look at what happens in the US when people don't have mandatory voting, when you look at the referendum in Turkey, what is the dominant takeaway idea? Basically it is about how much do people really care about issues that affect their lives and what are they prepared to do about it? It is a rather gloomy theme but Yeats wrote something like: "The best lack all conviction and the worst are full of a passionate intensity." Money, power, dictators (Turkey, North Korea, Assad) rule the day. Impoverishment, powerlessness, fleeing persecution, cynicism are the options for the powerless. I want to believe more in your thesis - and in Egypt some years ago, Twitter was a huge factor in harnessing mass participation which shows the power of your ideas in practice - but the underlying realities remain so chilling.

“This may itself call for a clearer vision of our democracy and its institutions.” Democracy is only an imperfect proxy for truth, relying on two suppositions. One, because there is no one truth in most of the issues that come up in politics, it is hoped that a numerical majority containing a diversity of motives will have the luck and probability of hitting the right answer. Two, most of the issues are not so important that the consequences of a mistake made by the majority in one election cannot be corrected in the second-chances provided by a series of frequent elections. But some matters have a long-term significance. Should the United Kingdom have removed itself from the inter-generational womb of the European Union? Should the power to bind or loose many future British generations blithely be given to a one-time exercise by a single generation? Or are there cases where once a consensus of values is lost, democracy will only hasten the fracturing of the consensus, with more efficient electoral technologies only hastening the fracturing?

e-Participation = absolute democracy. Imagine the abolition of all parliaments and replacing them with weekly on-line voting. It would save the nation $trillions and be far more democratic. The week leading up to a vote would be used by the media to present the objectives, pros and cons, then when electronic on-line ballots open, voters enter their Medicare number and vote yes or no. A computer counts the vote over night and it is reported by the media next day. The public service prepares the information and acts on decisions. A politician's role would change to become scrutineers of the process. No more time wasting and abuse of privileges!

Brexit, Roy, was not a failure of democracy, rather it was a failure of direct democracy. The problem that you raise (of the tyranny of the majority) is the the reason many nations have constitutions, bicameral parliaments, federal structures, the separation of executive and legislature, and of both from the judiciary. The requirement to get agreement in multiple forums is a powerful protection against foolish decision-making at the centre. Brexit should never have been the subject of a referendum. The question should have been decided by the UK Parliament (both houses) in conjunction with the devolved assemblies in Scotland, Ulster, and Wales. But the UK has no constitution, is not a federation, English MPS dominate the UK's parliament, and English voters dominated the referendum. The real concerns of Scotland and NI counted for nothing in the eyes of the English majority.

“The problem that you raise (of the tyranny of the majority)….” Ginger Meggs, the problem is the tyranny of the present over the future. The question is whether, if an irreversible issue has very long-term significance, one generation at a single point in time, by itself, should be presuming to speak for its descendants. Your proposal for how Brexit should have been polled is less democratic than the mechanism actually used. At least, the referendum involved all the eligible voters of the UK at a single point in time, not just some elites at a single point in time. But is ‘at a single point in time’ sufficient? Another example of an irreversible issue is a referendum for the independence of a colony. As we know from hindsight, the majority in many colonies, believing in a comradeship between skins of the same colour, enthusiastically voted for independence from a colonial power and promptly saw their new nations go downhill. What would the present day residents, mired in grim realities, think of the romantic foolishness that their ancestors deployed at a single point in time? The Philippines could have had Trump instead of Duterte.

Some great points, but the discussion needs to go further. A major concern is the assumption that an ill-informed vote matters as much as a vote from a well-informed voter. Is there a way to address this without being elitist? How in the 24 hour news cycle and silos of like minds do you get differing perspectives explored and discussed in depth by a wider audience? Is direct democracy worth it if the voters are ill-informed? I'm inclined to go with an approach where key decisions are made by a smaller group which properly explores the issue. That could be parliament, except they have degenerated into being about having and holding onto power (and serving vested interests), not what is best for the country. With compulsory voting, the candidates rely on 3 word slogans to grab the unengaged voters in the middle. With optional voting, the candidates rely on motivating people to vote - easiest with extreme views, harder if your moderate preference seems certain to win. How do we tackle housing un-affordability? This remains a problem because of US COLLECTIVELY, who will howl down any politician who proposes real measures to reduce home prices.

Roy, representative democracy of the sort that I have described is not less democratic, but rather less direct. But to address your main point, yes, I think I understand what you mean by the tyranny of the present - there are plenty of examples from which one might choose. But what is your solution? No change? No democracy? Or is it a theocracy?

Rather than tinker, we ought to follow the Scandinavian models and re-write our Constitution to suit our time. They have all retired their upper house and made rules for multi-party cabinets in a non-adversarial parliamentary system.