I've not been on this board long, but it has quickly become apparent that there are a few forum members with whom I vehemently disagree with on perhaps 1 or 2 issues, but who I would unhesitatingly agree with on perhaps 95% of other issues.

Unfortunately, the nature of democracy within the UK means that the issues we disagree upon (religion?, immigration?) perhaps cloud our view of existing political parties and makes us lean towards those parties which agree with us on a few key issues, rather then to those parties from whom we see some great ideas, but whom ideologically we could not possibly align ourselves with.

For instance, I fully recognise that the BNP do have a few good ideas, but I would never vote for them simply because on the key issues for me, they do not at all meet my agenda.

If only there was a way that the best ideas, from whichever party they came, would be implemented. What if there was a form of democracy which wasn't split down the lines of allegiance to a lumbering old political party, but which was split down the lines of allegiance to good ideas? I'd like to think of it as Peer-to-Peer Democracy, where the people actually get their say on individual elements of government (education, health, welfare, military action, etc) without having political party line dictated in what is usually a 2 or 3 horse race.

I'm still mulling how this might work in practice, but surely there is a way of producing a 'menu' of top level ideas for the electorate, split into key areas like Education Policy, Energy Policy, Transport Policy, Defense Policy, Health Policy, Immigration Policy, etc. Then, let the electorate decide which ideas they want implemented. The people within political parties who are behind the winning ideas get immediate authority to implement them.

This would mean that different people from different parties will be implementing ideas at the same time. So the concept of a particular governing party and an 'opposition' would be defunct. If you have had a good idea, get on and implement it and I simply could not care less what party you represent.

This would solve many of the issues of 'trust' that appear at election time, for instance, if nobody 'trusted' the Conservatives not to mess up the transport system then they wouldn't get votes on that issue. But if the Conservatives were 'trusted' with Education policy, then they could get on and do what they propose.

You wouldn't have to vote about every issue on the menu, just the ones that matter the most to you, this would solve the issue of voter apathy as it is likely that most people will participate by voting for something of interest to them on the menu, rather than the current system of opting out which means a vote for nothing. Participation in the democratic process will increase, though that participation will probably polarise towards the key issues that the electorate feel are critical, with a few people taking the time to vote on a number of menu items.

Taking this a step further, party politics could become almost defunct altogether if individuals not affiliated with any particular party were given the opportunity to add their ideas to the menu. If their idea is voted for there is no reason why they should not be given the required budget and the assistance of civil servants to help them implement it. In that respect, this would be true Peer-to-Peer Democracy as the people will be handing authority to an individual, not a party, to implement a specific task or take on a specific role. That person would then be paid a salary in accordance with the level of responsibility of that role.

It would be part of the elected person's responsibility to keep the people informed of their personal progress through blogging technology and that way the people would quickly be able to offer feedback on particular problems or choices that need to be made.

Yes. There are issues around having a fully budgeted and coherent policy with Peer-to-Peer Democracy, but then, that is the case anyway most of the time. At least with Peer-to-Peer Democracy the people literally have nobody but themselves to blame if the policies voted for are a bit hotch-potch, rather than hoping that a bunch of career politicians all bumble along in the right direction.

Am I barking up the wrong tree here? I'm sure there would be problems, but the question is, would there be fewer problems than there are now?
[Rep]

Party politics and pressure groups have ruined our democracy
[Rep]

Originally Posted by g hall:
Party politics and pressure groups have ruined our democracy

I'll be showing my ignorance when I say, what was there before party politics, and how was it better?

That is the other thing about Peer-to-Peer democracy. The pressure groups won't know who to target until it's too late. Ideas will win, not parties, and so if a single party has no overall power there is no point in lavishing attention upon a particular party. Also, if individuals get 'elected' by their ideas rather than because of their political affiliation, it is less likely that a career politician can have their snout in the trough for very long before a better idea comes along and sweeps them out of power.

I suppose in a sense, with Peer-to-Peer democracy a lot more dedicated 'independents' will be encouraged and will hopefully win through, and having had a great idea which took them to power are more likely to be able to leave government gracefully once they have fulfilled their ambition and implemented their idea.

is this making any sense?
[Rep]

I suppose a way around parties is to allow anyone tp propose an idea providing they record sufficient support for the proposal and then allow the populace to vote on it.
There would have to be some form of checks and balances I think along these lines

You want it then you have responsibilities for it
To vote you need to show knowledge about what you're voting on


What we don't need is voting for bread and circuses by a partisan electorate

No representation without taxation - there's a thought
[Rep]

This sounds like a variant of the Swiss direct democracy system, pat. What are your thoughts on adapting that system for UK specific issues?
[Rep]

Originally Posted by whypatcondellisntfun:
I've not been on this board long, but it has quickly become apparent that there are a few forum members with whom I vehemently disagree with on perhaps 1 or 2 issues, but who I would unhesitatingly agree with on perhaps 95% of other issues.

Unfortunately, the nature of democracy within the UK means that the issues we disagree upon (religion?, immigration?) perhaps cloud our view of existing political parties and makes us lean towards those parties which agree with us on a few key issues, rather then to those parties from whom we see some great ideas, but whom ideologically we could not possibly align ourselves with.

For instance, I fully recognise that the BNP do have a few good ideas, but I would never vote for them simply because on the key issues for me, they do not at all meet my agenda.

If only there was a way that the best ideas, from whichever party they came, would be implemented. What if there was a form of democracy which wasn't split down the lines of allegiance to a lumbering old political party, but which was split down the lines of allegiance to good ideas? I'd like to think of it as Peer-to-Peer Democracy, where the people actually get their say on individual elements of government (education, health, welfare, military action, etc) without having political party line dictated in what is usually a 2 or 3 horse race.

I'm still mulling how this might work in practice, but surely there is a way of producing a 'menu' of top level ideas for the electorate, split into key areas like Education Policy, Energy Policy, Transport Policy, Defense Policy, Health Policy, Immigration Policy, etc. Then, let the electorate decide which ideas they want implemented. The people within political parties who are behind the winning ideas get immediate authority to implement them.

This would mean that different people from different parties will be implementing ideas at the same time. So the concept of a particular governing party and an 'opposition' would be defunct. If you have had a good idea, get on and implement it and I simply could not care less what party you represent.

This would solve many of the issues of 'trust' that appear at election time, for instance, if nobody 'trusted' the Conservatives not to mess up the transport system then they wouldn't get votes on that issue. But if the Conservatives were 'trusted' with Education policy, then they could get on and do what they propose.

You wouldn't have to vote about every issue on the menu, just the ones that matter the most to you, this would solve the issue of voter apathy as it is likely that most people will participate by voting for something of interest to them on the menu, rather than the current system of opting out which means a vote for nothing. Participation in the democratic process will increase, though that participation will probably polarise towards the key issues that the electorate feel are critical, with a few people taking the time to vote on a number of menu items.

Taking this a step further, party politics could become almost defunct altogether if individuals not affiliated with any particular party were given the opportunity to add their ideas to the menu. If their idea is voted for there is no reason why they should not be given the required budget and the assistance of civil servants to help them implement it. In that respect, this would be true Peer-to-Peer Democracy as the people will be handing authority to an individual, not a party, to implement a specific task or take on a specific role. That person would then be paid a salary in accordance with the level of responsibility of that role.

It would be part of the elected person's responsibility to keep the people informed of their personal progress through blogging technology and that way the people would quickly be able to offer feedback on particular problems or choices that need to be made.

Yes. There are issues around having a fully budgeted and coherent policy with Peer-to-Peer Democracy, but then, that is the case anyway most of the time. At least with Peer-to-Peer Democracy the people literally have nobody but themselves to blame if the policies voted for are a bit hotch-potch, rather than hoping that a bunch of career politicians all bumble along in the right direction.

Am I barking up the wrong tree here? I'm sure there would be problems, but the question is, would there be fewer problems than there are now?

The simplest answer is to hand over as much as possible to the free market and get government out of the way. Opening up education to choice and competition, and doing likewise with the NHS, would remove the issue from politics and thus leave a narrower set of issues on which to agree or disagree.

Through the market people with different wants could be catered for (excepting ideological doctrines which necessarily require conformity).
[Rep]

I'm not sure exactly what you are propsing, but direct, decentralised democracy is probably a good improvement in general as long as like all democracy(and gov't.) it is still limited in its scope and size.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by :
The simplest answer is to hand over as much as possible to the free market and get government out of the way. Opening up education to choice and competition, and doing likewise with the NHS, would remove the issue from politics and thus leave a narrower set of issues on which to agree or disagree.

Immense differences of power exist in the "free" market, so it isn't that simple unless you want some kind of distributist kind of "free" market.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by BonnieDundee:
Immense differences of power exist in the "free" market, so it isn't that simple unless you want some kind of distributist kind of "free" market.

The free market is probably a more efficient way of creating wealth the problem is when the free market loses it's sense of morals
[Rep]

Let's put this into perspective, shall we?

Out of an official 60,776,238* people in the UK, there's 4,918 people (including spammers' accounts, government lackies, etc.) who gave enough of a **** about democracy to find their way to this forum.

Still, the X-Factor is back on the box so all is not lost.

(* If you believe the hype. Feels more like 80m to me)
[Rep]