Post in BBC local online plans and e-democracy

Apr 11 17:39 UTC

Hi All,

  Regarding Pete Thompson's response about direct democracy, I have to say his
argument has merit.
  I personally, would like to see aspects of DD inserted into our
representative democracy.

  The business of governance needs to continue and it is apparent that most
people do not want to bother with it on a daily basis.

  There are issues however, such as the 'Lisbon Treaty', where the people might
want a say.

  I have posted an e-petition at the Downing St. website. It reads as follows:-

  "We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Create legislation to
oblige elected representatives, at all levels of government, to advocate the
majority opinion of their constituents, where their constituents can
demonstrate a majority of 75%.

  details
  Mp's, local councillors etc, are elected to make decisions on behalf of their
constituents. Occasionally however, issues arise, of such import, that the
electorate considers it essential that their views be acted upon. In order to
enhance the democratic process, where an overwhelming majority can be
determined, in the order of 75%, the representative should be obliged to be an
advocate of and for that majority opinion and vote accordingly."

  If you think this petition has merit, you can view it or add your name by
visiting

  http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Majority-Opinion/

  Best Regards

  Roy Daine

Tom Steinberg <tom@mysociety.org> wrote:
  Hi All,

Just thought you might like to know that my FOI request about the cost
of Action Network has been answered in full:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bbc_action_network_cost

all the best,

Tom

On 27/02/2008, Pete Thomson
wrote:
> Roy wrote:
>
> > With e-democracy we could have real direct democracy, if we wished to have
> > it. As a complete system designed from scratch, it has never been tried, so
all
> > statements regarding its efficacy are merely conjecture.
>
>
> Precisely. Even the first sentence in that quote is merely conjecture - it
has never been demonstrated that such a system is workable.
>
> Obviously it's unlikely that those who hold power (and responsibility) under
the present system will support designing and testing such an alternative.
Apart from self-interest, they can advance perfectly good reasons for opposing
it - like the risk that it would collapse into chaos.
>
> If you believe in direct democracy, then one more feasible route towards it
might be to work on increasing participation in debate and deliberation on
issues of public policy, and in particular to look for ways to encourage the
development of consensus where possible. If you do manage to achieve a
consensus of a majority of the electorate after deliberation on an issue, or
even better several issues, then not only is it bound to have an impact on
decisions about those individual issues, but you might also see the system
start to evolve towards accepting more direct democracy, as you demonstrate
that the risk of its failure is not as great as many now believe.
>
> I think many of us in this forum would support that programme of action, not
because we believe in direct democracy, but because we see that sort of
engagement revitalising representative democracy. Can we reach a consensus on
what to do next, even if we disagree about where we think it will lead?