I'm woefully ignorant about British politics[*], so I found this very interesting -- thank you. For one thing, I am seeing that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" may not exactly translate between the US and the UK, because when I first read that it was the Tories who have come the furthest toward internet-based accessible politics, I had a moment of shock -- I could never see the US Republicans being out in front of the crowd on something like that...
Two things made me curious after reading this. First, I know that e-democracy is something you care passionately about. But is this a big issue for the average voter in the UK? Do you think the Tories' position on this will attract a lot of attention and support? It may be hard to tell, because as I understand it the pendulum is likely to swing their way, anyway.
Second, some US states such as (famously) California have a system of "ballot initiatives," where (as I understand it, at least; my state doesn't have this system) new laws can be added to a ballot and passed by the electorate in a general election. But the problem is, since these ballot initiatives don't go through the legislature -- where as gridlocked and stifled by special interests as they may be, at least the legislators (or their staffs) understand the process of writing legislation -- the BIs often don't work as intended, or they open legal loopholes, or they end up being unconstitutional and getting struck down by the state's supreme court anyway. So my question is, if an entire nation were to move toward direct democracy or internet voting on every issue, what would ensure that the parts of government that actually need to be run by specialists would still be?
[*]My ignorance of British politics has been abating slightly recently, as I've started reading The Economist, which my guy subscribes to. So now I know about the invisible middle class, and Thatcher's program with the council houses, for example. ;) The issue that just came today has a feature on the three main parties and the election, and I will certainly be reading it -- now maybe with more interest than I would have otherwise, because I've seen people I (e-)know discussing it!
no subject
Two things made me curious after reading this. First, I know that e-democracy is something you care passionately about. But is this a big issue for the average voter in the UK? Do you think the Tories' position on this will attract a lot of attention and support? It may be hard to tell, because as I understand it the pendulum is likely to swing their way, anyway.
Second, some US states such as (famously) California have a system of "ballot initiatives," where (as I understand it, at least; my state doesn't have this system) new laws can be added to a ballot and passed by the electorate in a general election. But the problem is, since these ballot initiatives don't go through the legislature -- where as gridlocked and stifled by special interests as they may be, at least the legislators (or their staffs) understand the process of writing legislation -- the BIs often don't work as intended, or they open legal loopholes, or they end up being unconstitutional and getting struck down by the state's supreme court anyway. So my question is, if an entire nation were to move toward direct democracy or internet voting on every issue, what would ensure that the parts of government that actually need to be run by specialists would still be?
[*]My ignorance of British politics has been abating slightly recently, as I've started reading The Economist, which my guy subscribes to. So now I know about the invisible middle class, and Thatcher's program with the council houses, for example. ;) The issue that just came today has a feature on the three main parties and the election, and I will certainly be reading it -- now maybe with more interest than I would have otherwise, because I've seen people I (e-)know discussing it!