-
Electronic Democracy: How to make politics
affordable to every citizen?
Name: www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Purpose: The purpose of Electronic Democracy is to move the full
political process towards Internet in order to make politics accessible to
every citizens on an equal basis.
Objective
At the beginning of our history,
nation had been divided into two groups: the one who writes the laws and the
one who had to follow the laws. The
uniqueness of the law supposes that the law can be written in a unique place:
the capital city. I have conducted the
detail analysis of this historical process in my book: “The day when
politicians will debate about our genes?” I have also analysed the failure of
the restoration of the democratic process in the Greek Athenian democracy by
the difficulty for remotely located farmers to attend to the debate and
participate to the vote of laws.
Five
thousands years ago, the invention of the papyrus changes the logic of the
transition of the law. The tribal world had to disappear and country state
surrounding one city had appeared. But, in 1968, an alternative media for the
law appears: the first digital microprocessor. Remoteness from the political
centre cannot be an argument for political discrimination and the full nation
can have equally influential political right. They can have not only equal
political access to the law voting but also to the full political process.
The objective of this limited
project www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk is to create simplified, complete and
transparent parallel political process on Internet. The fundamental principle
behind the project is to achieve the fundamental democratic objective of
political equity.
Political equity means:
-
equity in the right to vote or amend law in an
electronic national assembly,
-
equity in the right to decide the tax
structure,
-
equity in the right to establish financial
control over the state,
-
creation of a national electronic assembly
where everybody can participate to the debate or give their voting right to
anybody of their choice,
-
direct reporting of financial controller to
the citizen tax payer,
-
equity in the right to decide political
priority,
-
equity in the right to access to national
responsibility and the right to get those positions,
-
equity in the right to create
executive power and in the process to access to those powers,
-
equity in the right to be candidate
to elective position.
Electronic Democracy is opposed to
relational politics. Politics stop to be based on equity if hidden
relation process becomes the game rule of the politics. Political equity is a
fundamental principle of an ideal democracy. The concept was more demagogic
than practicable before Internet. Now, a true democracy is not only technically
feasible, but it is also a necessity to rebalance power from the political
toward the productive power. The
association of political inequality and computer technology have eased and
increase corruption opportunities to such a level that the productive class is
guaranteed to be forced out by a political group, who can increase their share
of wealth with the highest level of discretion.
Key concepts
www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk ,
offers a email server which receive email. It will also be developed a web
service and so it can be accessible from multiple points: standalone
application like outlook or web site. www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk is a general political application, which will be inspired
by democratic oral politics and not discriminating writing politics.
So, it might be not convenient to use it as it is but simplify sub-application
with restrain functionality in order to be offered to citizens.
The debate
mechanism: Issue, resolution and political speculation
A debate starts by raising an
issue. To this issue, debaters propose resolution. The resolutions can be
classified into three categories: informative, experimental, act. An
informative resolution has the purpose to gather information on an issue. An
act resolution has the purpose to solve the issue. An experimental resolution
is an act resolution applied to a smaller scope in order to test the
effectiveness of the resolution at a reduced risk. Then, resolution is
supported by arguments called political speculations. Political speculations are counter attack by refutation. Then,
refutation can be refutated by counter refutations.
The political speculations are beliefs coming from a large
number of schools: economical hypothesis, religious belief. Political
speculations can be refutated on their irrelevance according to the problem,
but by providing scientific argument and experiment. Scientific discipline
follows the rule that idea that everything is false if not prove true. In
politics, it is rather the opposite: every speculation can be put to debate and
offer to be voted, if not prove false.
To summarize, the debate will be
based on:
§
Equal right to every citizen
to put his speculation in the system,
§
Attack of opposing
speculation by the presentation of evidence,
§
If evidences are not there,
opponents can launch experimentation to attack false speculation,
§
When all false speculation
have been removed, citizen can vote by agreeing to a speculation and not
directly voting to the political decision (tax, law, granting of executing
power,…). One speculation can lead to several decisions and some decisions will
be linked to several speculations.
www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
will be based on an electronic dialectic and not on simple voting. In any
debating process, the vote is the last recourse to obtain a convergence and an
act. In the case of a plebiscite, one can wonder on which criteria, the vote
should be decided to take place. The mental mechanism behind “Voting” is not
transparent and so can lead to incoherent act and laws. Voting is based on
individual decision, as electronic dialectic is a consensual collective
process. With voting, everybody keeps his own mental dialectics secret. With
electronic dialectics, the dialectics process is disclosed and transparent to
all of us so it is easy to each of us to create an opposition by inserting new
speculations in the dialectics to change issues.
Readers do not ignore than
currently 99 % of the real politics took place before voting. The purpose of
voting is legitimate already taken decisions. Politics is more about to decide
about the political agenda and priority than really about voting.
Hierarchisation of the law framework
Real political power is not about
voting but on the right to decide about the political agenda. Electronic
Democracy offers the possibility to debate about an unlimited subject at the
same time. So, at the first glance, the problem of the priorities should not be
an issue. But, in fact, it is:
But, an efficient law framework
supposes:
-
hierarchisation of the law (new law should no
contradict old law) or the first old law should be changed,
-
Forbid the usage of
“political” synonyms,
-
Forbid double issue
resolution.
Political synonyms are terms,
which differs by the fact that the individual, who employs them, use them to
qualify themselves, the listener or a tiers person. The human right declaration
of the French revolution of 1789 forbids “self granted privileges” but the
constitution authorizes “state guarantees”, and who decides of the state
guarantee: the administration and politician themselves. The usage of synonym
has always been used in order to correct the laws by contradicting it. Then,
power abuses are done by the selection of the law.
Another example is:
The law forbid robbery (like Robin
Wood and Italian mafia did), but authorizes redistribution. But, how are
robbery and redistribution differentiated? It is differentiated by the fact
that in the case of a redistribution, the extortion is done by legally
authorized agent according to legally establish criteria. But, who decide about
those criteria and the nomination of those agents? It is the authority, which
decides and initiates the act of redistribution. And then, you get a political
synonym, which is creating a conceptual confusion and corrupt the debate. The
use of “illegal redistribution” for a robbery or “legal stealing” for taxation
with the exclusive purpose of redistribution would avoid the confusion.
A double issue resolution is the
resolution, which deals with two issues. They should be replaced by a single
issue resolution with directly solve the problem. One example is “taxing the
rich” to avoid the provocation of luxury display. The issue is the “provocation
of luxury display”. The provocation is usually more than a provocation because
it leads also to inflation. And so, we can interpreter the feeling of
provocation by the “fight against inflation”.
But, “taxing the rich” enriches
the politician and civil servant in order to solve the hidden issue of the
appetite of the political class, which in return, will show a provocative
display of spending, which also lead to inflation. A corresponding single-issue
resolution is to put of quota of property holding (and so avoiding explosion of
property value by a corner of the property market), car value spending and so…
Riches will be obliged to invest instead consuming which lead to job creation
instead of inflation fuelling.
Delegation
The move toward efficiency
supposes that citizen can specialize in a governmental field. A mean to achieve
this is to delegate a political right to somebody “competent” or interested to
invest himself in the debate. The concept of competence should also be debated
and this debate can only be opened to all. The assembly can vote laws in order
to limit the debaters according to criteria of competence, which can be: proof
of professional involvement, diploma, QCM, exams…etc Non competent debater can
influence the debate by delegating its political right to a competent debater
of his knowledge. And so, the political equality is guarantee in a sense that
nobody has the privilege to fix competence criteria and the number of competent
cannot be restricted. The mechanism of delegation will lead to political
specialization by specialist and help to get rid of the generalist incompetent
politician, who is dominating the media and the current process.
An electronic market will support
delegation. Hector has a job of economist. Achilles is a medical doctor.
Achilles will organize a transaction of political right with Hector. Hector
will get right to debate on the assembly concerning the economy of Achilles and
delegate his right about the healthcare policy. So, delegation is the first
step toward political specialization. The fact that delegation will be based on
exchange of right rather than by campaigning should preserve the fair
distribution of political powers. It is a natural process. Political debater
will try to increase their political weight by gathering delegate rights. The
process of delegation will be recurrent. Achilles goes three political rights
to participate to the medical assembly. Achilles is not interested by assembly
debate about human genome. So, Achilles will delegate his political right
concerning human genome project to Bertrand. But, Achilles will keep his
political right about other medical issues.
Mandatory delegation versus
default delegation
A delegation can be a default
feature. If Achilles does not participate to a debate about “genetic
screening”, the right are added to Bertrand. But, if Achilles starts to
participate to the debate about “genetic screening”, Bertrand lost the three
voting right of Achilles. Due to fact, people have a limited time to do
politics; it will be nearly common practice to have a delegation by defaults.
But, in some case of the competence issue, the delegation will be mandatory.
Achilles might not be competent on genetic issue, so he will have no right to
take back his political right to participate to the debate. If Achilles does
not agree with Bertrand on genetic issue, the political acting of Achilles will
be to move his three rights to Bertrand to Arthur instead of debating himself.
The change of delegate has to be done to all the full specialization assembly,
if so Arthur will get the rights of Achilles to debate about all genetic
issues.
Trading of mandatory delegation
right
If a delegation right is obtained
by trading of political rights, the delegation will be a mandatory delegation. Achilles
will have the right of Hector to debate in the medical assembly. And so, Hector
will have lost all possibility to intervene in any subject of this assembly. If
Hector does not agree with Achilles about a debate of implementation of a new
medical test, Hector will have first to break the trade of delegate right. When
can Hector break his delegate trade with Achilles? But, it practices the
trading contract got an expiration date. If Hector will exchange his political
right with Achilles, the trading contract of delegation will be for one year
since its effective date. After one year, Hector and Achilles can break the
trading contract at anytime.
Granting of
executive power
An important topic of
institutional debate in democracy is the relations between executive power and
legislative power? Classical republican
proclaims the separation of the two powers. But, as the purpose of the
legislative is to set up clear rule to nominate executive and to imitate their
mandate. The relation should be subordination of the executive to the
legislative. Tolerating that executive proclaims the separation means that the
legislative has lost control of the executive and that the nation is not
technically speaking a democracy anymore.
Politic necessitate executing them
plan and in some case legislative power should be granted. For this issue, it
is valuable to compare the process of granting legislative power in the private
sector to the granting process of the administration.
In the private sector,
responsibility is granted only when needed and to do what it is needed and the
cost of the creation or preservation of the position is always considered in
relation to the benefit.
In the private sector,
shareholders have the final word about the recruitment process in companies.
The shareholders decide to restrict the candidate potential by diploma or
previous experience. Then, the selection is achieved and decided. The
remuneration, the time of the attribution and the budget is negotiated. The
responsible knows that he should succeed the mission if he wants to get new
one, so he will refuse it if its budget is not adequate to the mission.
In the public sector, it is rather
the opposite. First, candidate decides of their attribution. They manipulate
the electing process (proportional, majorities,) to control the result. They
decide about candidates according to their own cultural law without any
consideration of the curriculum of candidate (I never see the curriculum vitae
of any candidate to the French electoral election! How can I select for one of them without this basic information?)
Then, they latter decide of their remuneration (in many case by privilege to
spend public fund for their own need) and try to show that they are useful.
They are also engaged in the corruption of the tax system to finance the self
declare remuneration. They rarely suppress useless political status and create
new one, cumulate them and cumulate the remunerations. Electronic Democracy
will follow the process of granting, restricting and controlling executive
responsibility of the private sector.
Electronic Democracy had a new
dimension to guarantee the quality of the debate by the motivation of a
nomination: the memory. All interventions about debaters are memorized
to grade them in order to decide evaluate the level of trust in the nomination.
Avatar and
profile
The debaters have a way to filter
information and to select or negotiate the information about themselves that
they accept to be available to an organisation. This information has to be kept
by separate political organization (political party, city, syndicate,
association, public companies, countries…). So, citizens will have one profile
and as many avatar as they like. An avatar will filter information about his
profile. This information has entered himself or by others about its profile.
So, citizen will disclose its avatar to political organizations with the
information. He wants to disclose. This information will be used to participate
in to the political debate.
Software architecture
Email
The first access to electronic
democracy will be an email platform. Email platform have the advantage to avoid
the development of complexes window layout. It is also very easier to manage
the evolution of the platform. The inconvenient is that this platform is not
efficient to present complex layout like reports, or debate on a form of a
tree.
Web Service
Another interface of Electronic
democracy will be web service. We service makes it possible to access the same
database, from several application. The first experimental version will be a
MS-DOS command line system. Then, edemocracy.exe will store data to a common
database locates on the server of www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Latter, several web site
application and stand-alone window application like outlook will be developed
in order to have better interface to www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk.
Creation
of an organisation
Albert, Hector, Bertrand, Achilles
belong to the Democratic Party committee and use www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk to distribute responsibilities and commitments.
Albert connects first by typing
his profileID (which is an email address) and passwords and creates an avatar
called AlbertDemParty. Albert will also have to define an avatar name for all
publics and name it AlbertPublic. The
public profile has information like a communication language (English and
French are currently supported), the creation date, some information about his
activities like the last log on time.
Electronicdemocracy.co.uk answers
that the new avatar will be connected by default to the main root profile.
Creating
a political organisation
Abert@yahoo.com|eng>
create avatar AlbertDemParty
New avatar
AlbertDemParty created. The parent
avatar is the AlbertPublic
The
email approach will be:
From:
Albert@yahoo.com ( Original address of
Albert)
To:
root@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create avatar AlbertDemParty
Text: (The
txt is blank)l
The return
will be:
From:
root@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
To:
Albert@yahoo.com
Subject:
create avatar: OK
Text: New avatar
AlbertDemParty created. The parent avatar
is the AlbertPublic. The email address Albert@yahoo.com is now a profile of our system. The
password to connect is c3n57 with the profile
Albert@yahoo.com
Then, albert changes his
contextual profile to AlbertDemParty
Abert@yahoo.com|eng> change avatar AlbertDemParty
AlbertDemParty|eng> create organisation
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland
New organisation DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland created.
The administrator is AlbertDemParty. The debating language is eng. All member
of DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland will have accessed to the profile
AlbertDemParty
The
email approach will be:
From:
Albert@yahoo.com ( Original address of
Albert)
To:
AbertDemParty@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create organisation
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland
Text: (The
txt is blank)
You
should notice that the mail has been sent to AbertDemParty@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk and not to the system
address root@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk It is the way to
specify that the action is not done under the your root profile. The root
profile information is closed to every observer.
The return
will be:
From:
AbertDemParty@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
To:
Albert@yahoo.com
Subject:
create organisation: OK
Text: New organisation
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland created.
The administrator is
AlbertDemParty. The debating language is eng. All member of
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland will have accessed to the profile
AlbertDemParty
Then, Hector, Bertrand, Achilles
have also added an avatar to their profile in order to join the organisation
with the respective name HectorDemParty, BertrandDemParty, AchillesDemParty.
They can grant access to each other to the information available by their
avatar or to the full organisation. To facilitate the understanding, I use the
real profile name to make the avatar, but in a real scenario, you can use a
confidential name especially for your public profile.
Hector@hotmail.com|eng> create avatar HectorDemParty
Hector@hotmail.com|eng>move avatar HectorDemParty
HectorDemParty|eng>grant access avatar BertrandDemParty
BertrandDemParty will have accessed to the profile data of HectorDemParty.
HectorDemParty|eng>grant access organisation
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland
All the current and future members of the organisation
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland will have accessed to the data of your profile.
The
email approach will be:
From:
Hector@hotmail.com (Original email address
of Hector) To:
root@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create avatar HectorDemParty
Text: (The
txt is blank)
From:
Hector@hotmail.com
To: HectorDemParty@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
grant access avatar
BertrandDemParty
Text: grant access organisation DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland
The return
will be:
From:
HectorDemParty@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: Hector@hotmail.com
Subject:
grant access:OK
Text: BertrandDemParty
will have accessed to the profile data of HectorDemParty.
All the current and
future members of the organisation DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland will have
accessed to the data of your profile.
In order to enter into the
organisation, Hector should send a message to Albert.
HectorDemParty|eng>create message “I want to enter in
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland”
HectorDemParty|eng|message> Please, Abert adds me to the
organisation DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland
HectorDemParty|eng|message> send AlbertDemParty
Message has been sent to AlbertDemParty. But, as you do not
have accessed to AlbertDemParty. The message will be stored under AlbertPublic
The hierarchy of avatar filters the
messaging system of www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk. Albert will have the
possibility to consult all messages under his public avatar AlbertPublic. But,
the entire world can spam him messages to his public profile so he might rather
read only to the messages filter under the avatar AlbertDemParty.
The email approach will be:
From:
Hector@hotmail.com (Original email address
of Hector) To: AlbertDemParty@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
HectorDemParty: I want to
enter in DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland
Text: Please, Abert adds me to the
organisation DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland
In order to specify the origin of
the message, the name of the avatar add been added to the subject line. Hector@hotmail.com will not receive any receipt for
his message. The system will rewrite the message in the following manner before
sending it to Albert
From:
HectorDemParty@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: Albert@yahoo.com
Subject:
I want to enter in
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland
Text: Please, Albert adds me to the
organisation DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland
The
original email address of Albert and Hector stay always transparent to each
other
When Albert log on again
Albert@yahoo.com|eng>You have new messages on your
public profile
Albert@yahoo.com|eng>move avatar AlbertDemParty
AlbertDemParty|eng>move organisation
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland
AlbertDemParty|eng|DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland >add
HectorDemParty
HectorDemParty has been added to the organisation
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland
HectorDemParty send you 1 message
The email approach will be:
From:
Albert@yahoo.com To: DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
add HectorDemParty
Text: (nil)
You should notice that Albert
communicates to the organisation through DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Adding HectorDemParty to the
organisation DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland as AlbertDemParty is also a member
to the DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland infers that an access to AlbertDemParty
private space will be granted to HectorDemParty. In order to verify who had
accessed to HectorDemParty, AlbertDemParty can use the command list
AlbertDemParty|eng>list access
HectorDemParty
AchillesDemParty
The email approach will be:
From:
Albert@yahoo.com To: DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
list acess
Text: (nil)
The email return will be
From:
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk To Albert@yahoo.com
Subject:
list acess:OK
Text:
HectorDemParty
AchillesDemParty
We can see that
AchillesDemParty grantes an access to AlbertDemParty but Bertrand forget to
grant it.
AlbertDemParty|eng|DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland >add
BertrandDemParty
BertrandDemParty did not grant any access to you. A message
has been sent to his avatar BertrandPublic
The email approach will be:
From:
Albert@yahoo.com To: DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
add BertrandDemParty
Text: (nil)
The email return will be
From:
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland@www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk To Albert@yahoo.com
Subject:
add: Failed
Text BertrandDemParty did not grant any access
to you. A message has been sent to his avatar BertrandPublic
So, www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk will store the fact that BertrandDemParty has the
authorization to enter DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland, and when Bertrand will
log on
BertrandDemParty did not grant any
access to you. A message has been sent to his avatar BertrandPublic.
BertrandDemParty has entrance authorization to
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland. Please, grant the access
BertrandDemParty|eng >grant access
DemocraticPartyComiteeInEngland
How to
introduce a bill in an organisation registered in www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
?
The purpose of debating in large
assemblies is to have a large numbers of individuals converging in order to
proceed to a decision. In current democratic assembly, the technique of
convergence is based on augmenting before proceeding to a final voting. However
in a debate, it is always possible to diverge to other topics and so a major
issue has been to regulate the debate in order to maintain the focus to
important topics. Electronic assemblies are however different by physical
assemblies in the sense that physical assemblies are constrained by the fact
that only one member can speak at one time. Electronic assembly does not have
that limitation and constrains then physical assembly. So, I will not be able
to follow the terminology and process in Robert's Rules of
Order that has been standardized for parliamenry debating process.
The debate took place of the House
of Commons in April 2008. The House Of Commons will be registered in Electronic
Democracy as HouseOfCommons. In www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk, I will use existing member and put their
request in the system according to the way that they participate to the debate.
The original text of the bill
FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenBill can
be founded in the www.parliament.uk web site.
The bill has been created be the Member of Parliament Nigel Griffiths of the labor
party. The first act is to send an email to HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create bill FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenBill
Text:
set
language English
add
keyword Food, Children, Media
create
description “Make provision about the advertising, marketing and promotion of
food and
drink
products to children; and for connected purposes.”
add
namespace “Food Products Marketing”
add
bill “Food Standards Act 1999”: “less healthy”
set session 07-09
set
reference 19
add
section “Promotion of less healthy food to children”
add
subsection 1 “It is an offence for a
person or body to advertise or promote to children food products which are
classified as ‘less healthy’”
add
subsection 2 “An offence is committed under this section if the less healthy
food product is advertised or promoted”
add
case “broadcast media”: “by the broadcaster, if the advertisement or promotion
is broadcast between the hours 5.30 am and 9.00 pm in the United Kingdom”
add
case “non-broadcast media”: “by the broadcaster, if the advertisement or
promotion is broadcast between the hours 5.30 am and 9.00 pm in the United
Kingdom”
add
subsection 3
add
directory “less healthy food product” includes “any brand name which is
associated with the food product in question or similar less healthy food
products”
add
subsection 4 “A person or body guilty
of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to an
unlimited fine.”
add
subsection 5 detail 4
add
responsibility request UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: “may make a
request to the Sentencing Guidelines Council to produce guidance on the
appropriate levels of fines imposed”
add
subsection 6
grant
guidance UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOf State: may, by regulations, issue
guidance regarding the content and nature of advertisements and promotions
which may be permitted under this section,
grant guidance
UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: may, by regulations, issue guidance
regarding the meaning of “associated with” for the purposes of subsection (3)
add
subsection 7
grant consulation
UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: FoodStandardsAgency
grant consulation
UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: OfficeOfCommunications
grant consulation
UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: AnyOrganisation
add
section “Duty of Food Standards Agency”
add
subsection 1
update
bill “The Food Standards Act 1999”
update
subsection 7
add
responsibility FoodStandardsAgency “publishing a system or model for
determining those foods which it classifies as “less healthy” for the purposes
of the Food Products (Marketing to Children) Act 2008.”
Add
section “Short title, commencement and extent”
add
subsection 1
set
name “Food Products (Marketing to Children) Act 2008”
add
subsection 2
set
time “This Act comes into force at the end of the period of two months
beginning on the day on which it is passed.”
add
subsection 3
add
location England
add
location Scotland
add
location NorthernIreland
The server will return him a
status message with the following error messages
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
Subject:
create bill FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenBill: failed
Text:
E2345:
link namespace FoodProducts Marketing: Namespace unknown
E1232:
add section DutyOfFoodStandardsAgency: add subsection 3: add location
NorthernIreland: NorthernIreland unknown
E0098:
grant consulation
UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: FoodStandardsAgency : The function
UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState
is unknown
E0034:
grant consulation UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState:
FoodStandardsAgency: The organisation UnitedKingdomGovernment is unknown
E0034:
grant consulation UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState:
FoodStandardsAgency: The organisation FoodStandardsAgency is unknown
E0034:
grant consulation UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState:
OfficeOfCommunications: OfficeOfCommunications
is unknown
The
vocabulary is added by inserting namespace or by creating new one. In this case, we will include an existing
namespace and create a new one
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create namespace FoodProductsMarketing -english
add
namespace FoodSafety
create
concept advertising_and_promotion –mean:“trade practice the express or implied
purpose of which is to promote the sale or consumption of a product, and
includes the sponsoring of a television program and the placement of a product
in a program for the purpose of promotion;”
create
word promotion advertising
create
concept brand -mean:“any name, logo,
slogan or trademark associated with or owned by a food company;”
create
concept broadcast_media
-mean:“scheduled and on-demand broadcasts”
create
concept radio_services
–parent:broadcast_media
create
concept terrestrial satellite cable
television_services_broadcast –parent:broadcast_media
create
concept children –means:“any persons
under the age of 16”
create
concept non_broadcast_media –exclude:broadcast_media
create
concept print_media –parent:non_broadcast_media
create
concept cinema_and_video
–parent:non_broadcast_media
create
concept electronic_media -parent:non_broadcast_media
create
concept correspondence –parent:non_broadcast_media
create
concept online_advertisements_in_paid-for_space –parent:electronic_media
create
concept website -parent:electronic_media
create
concept brochures –parent:correspondence
create
concept flyer -parent:correspondence
create
concept point_of_sale_displays
packaging SMS_text_messages
-parent:non_broadcast_media
create
concept sponsorship
-mean:“communications which refer to sponsorship”-parent:non_broadcast_media
The server of electronic democracy
will return
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
Subject:
create namespace FoodProductsMarketing: OK
And, finality
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create location NorthernIreland
Text:
set
language english
translate
french IrelandeDuNord
The return is
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
Subject:
create location NorthenIreland: OK
The system indicates that some
organizations are not registered. The
FoodStandardsAgency could one day registered to electronic democracy and use
electronic democracy for his own politics. But, it not the case, so it should
be registered virtually by using the option vitual. Option are differentiated
from command keyword(create) or entity keyword (avatar,organisation) by the
minus sign ‘-‘. The sign : is used if the option presets an argument.
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: root@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create organisation -virtual
FoodStandardsAgency
Text:
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: root@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create organisation -virtual UnitedKingdomGovernment
Text:
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: UnitedKingdomGovernment@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create position SecretaryOfState
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: root@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create -virtual organisation OfficeOfCommunications
Text:
The virtual modificator means that there will have no
democratic controls in this organisation. NigelGriffiths will be an administrator
to those organizations. He can use the command
grant access avatar BertrandDemParty to record others administrator. Administrator will have
the power to directly pass or remove bills, create function without any
democratic controls. But, in any other term, virtual organizations have the
same functionality then an active registered organisation.
Now, the bill proposal can be put
again in the system:
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create bill FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenBill
Text:
(same
trext)
The return is
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
Subject:
create bill FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenBill: OK
Then, it is a good idea to see if the
bill is in the system in using the list command. As Nigel Griffiths does not
know how to use the list command, he can use the help command to know more
about
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
help list
The return is by default in
English
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
Subject:
list synopsis for {organisation}
Text:
list is used to search an object in the system.
list
keyword: display all the keyword classified with the number of resolution
associated to them
list
issue -s{session} : display the bills of the last session (07-08) and the
number of bill of previous sessions
To
have the bills and resolutions of the session of year 2006-2007, you can obtain
the list of bill in a session
list
issue -s06-07
To
obtain the contain a bill, you can used the identification number in the
section
list
bill -s06-07 19
or
the name
list
resolution –i{issue}
list
resolution –iFoodProductsMarketingToChildren
list
the resolution link to the issue FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
list
resolution –k{keyword} lists the directories and subdirectory containing bills
and their number of bills
list
resolution -kfood: lists the bills of
the keyword food
list
namespace: lists namespace
list
avatar -o{organisation}: If authorize
to do so, the list of avatar (member) of the {organisation} is displayed
The preceding help was sent to be
specific to the HouseOfCommons organisation. It is possible to use command
help, create or list in a more specific way by sending it to root@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: root@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
help list
The return is by default in
English
From: root@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
Subject:
list synopsis
Text:
list is used to search an object in the system.
list keyword: display sorted by the number of
descending resolution
list
avatar -k{keyword} list organisation
eventually
list
avatar -oHouseOfCommons: If authorize
to do so, the list of avatar (member) of the organisation named HouseOfCommons
is displayed
list
avatar -oHouseOfCommons: If authorize
to do so, the list of avatar (member) of the organisation named HouseOfCommons
is displayed
list
bill
is similar to list resolution except it
will display only resolution written on the form f a bill
So, to have the list of bill,
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
list bill -s07-08
The return is
From:
HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
Subject:
: list bill -s07-08: OK
Text:
AlcoholLabellingBill
Passed
ChannelTunnelRailLinkSupplementaryProvisionsBill Passed
DrugsRoadsideTestingBill Debated
FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenBill Introduced
Bills are displayed with their
status in the debating process:
Passed means approved
Debated means but not yet
approved; a bill can be indefinitely debated if it has a strong opposition
Introduced means that nobody gave
its opinion about the bill
How to pass a bill in electronic democracy?
The bill
FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenBill is
in the system but need to be approved by 50 % of others member to be passed. To
make sense, the bill should solve problems of an existing or new introduce
issue. Nigel Griffiths should introduce the issue by the command:
Move issue and indicate that the
bill is a resolution of the issue
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create resolution ChildrenObesity.FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
-bFoodProductsMarketingToChildrenBill
Text:
add message
with
title “Introduction of Food Products (Marketing to Children) Bill”
“Obesity, especially
among children, is a threat to their health, to the NHS and to the economy. The
World Health Organisation, the World Cancer Research Fund and the Government’s
expert scientists have warned that obesity is a problem of potentially epidemic
proportions and that drastic action is needed if millions of young lives are
not to be blighted and billions of pounds drained from the NHS and the economy.
The impact of obesity on
Britain has been likened to climate change: a disaster for the lives of
individuals, our health service and the economy. Today, in Britain, one in
three children are classified as overweight or obese. More than nine out of 10
children consume too much saturated fat; more than eight out of 10 too much
sugar; and more than seven out of 10 too much salt. The Government’s foresight
report has predicted that between half and two thirds of all our children will
be overweight or obese if current trends continue.
The estimated cost of
the rise of obesity in cash terms is put at £45 billion a year if no action is
taken. Diabetes UK tells us that, unless action is taken, the incidence of type
2 diabetes will rise by 70 per cent., and of strokes by 30 per cent. and
coronary heart disease 20 per cent. Massive funding to advertise and promote
junk foods—£800 million a year—is undermining the efforts of parents to control
the food and sugary drinks that children take. As a former Minister with some
responsibility for the advertising industry, I am pleased to introduce a Bill
that will reinforce parents’ efforts and make it easier to encourage healthier
eating to benefit children and the economy.
There is no single
solution to childhood obesity, but everyone except the food and advertising
industries agrees that tougher regulations and restrictions on how unhealthy
foods are marketed to children are essential. Even the advertising industry
concedes that such regulations would make an impact, otherwise it would not
oppose the Bill so vigorously.”
-b is used to add a bill to the
resolution
This text and the following texts
are copied from the debate of the House of Commons, 25 April 2005: Column 1584
and available on Internet at www.parliament.uk The message will be sent to all members of HouseOfCommons
to indicate that a new bill is available for a debate. The bills get support by the following member
of the house of common: Mary Creagh, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe,
Andrew George, Bob Spink and Stephen Williams.
To record their support, the
supporting members should send the email:
From: MaryCreagh@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
support FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
The return is
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: MaryCreagh@parliament.uk
Subject:
support FoodProductsMarketingToChildren: OK
It is then useful for any member
to check the status of the bill by
From: MaryCreagh@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
status FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
The return is
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: MaryCreagh@parliament.uk
Subject:
status FoodProductsMarketingToChildren: Debated
Text:
InFavor:
7
Against:0
Not
manifested: 639
At this stage, the bill is not
passed. And as you can see, there are no needs for voting to endorse the bill.
The system finds out automatically who is in favor and who is against? The
introducer Nigel Griffiths is in favor. Supporters are in favor. Supporters of
alternative resolution are against. Supporters of amendments to the resolution
are against but become automatically supporters if all the amendments they had
proposed are accepted. The advantage to function on implicit voting is to avoid
political strategies consisting on debating in one direction in order to vote
in another direction. This strategy is
unfortunately the most efficient to win a position by voting. The best way to
get the maximum of supporters is to campaign in the opposite direction of your
intention.
It is however possible for
supporters to remove their support by asking an amendment to the bill. An
opposite conservative MP, Philip Davies express is opposition by
From: PhilipDavies@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Create Poll ChildObesity.NationalOpinionPoll
Status:
ToVoteRelevance
FromOrganisation
Unknown
add
message “The hon. Gentleman says that everyone accepts that the Bill is needed
to tackle childhood obesity, yet a recent opinion poll showed that 76 per cent.
of the public thought that the restrictions would make no difference whatever
to childhood obesity levels. I am not entirely sure how he has worked out that
everybody agrees with him. On what basis does he take that view?”
InformativeMotion are motions,
which are incidental to the main motion. They are many kind of
InformativeMotion. Poll is one of them if the organization considers that a
national poll has authority on the vote of the assembly. Otherwise, the
InformativeMotion Poll is not the only InformativeMotion available. Some others
InformativeMotion are Experimentation, Consultation, Enquiry, HolyText
Experimentation is the necessity
to previously verify a fact. For example, the verification that ethanol can be
used as a gasoline in car in the case of an energy bill.
Consultation is the necessity to
get the approval from another organisation. In the bill, we mention the
FoodStandardsAgency has the organisation responsible for the approval.
HolyText In an Islamic republic,
you can imagine that a koranic verse can be cited to oppose a bill and so the
relevancy of the text to the point of opposition should be debated first.
The status of an informative
motion can be:
ToDo: If it has not be done,
ToVoteRelevance: If it has be done
but relevance to the problem has not be accepted
DoneAndRelevant: If the result is
known, the relevance accepts by 50 %.
The return is
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: PhilipDavies@parliament.uk
Subject:
ChildObesity.NationalOpinionPoll: ToVoteRelevance: OK
Text:
Resolution
Poll is secondary due to the fact that the poll organisation is unknown
In this case, the supporters of
motion FoodProductsMarketingToChildren can just stay silent to this InformativeMotion.
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Oppose -Relevance ChildObesity.NationalOpinionPoll
Text:
add
message “It is the case because having listened to people, I have introduced a
Bill that is a compromise. I am sure that if those people were polled on even
tougher regulations, they would say that they would have an effect. As we are
trying to reach a compromise, we have introduced a Bill that is practical and
proportionate. I am sorry if members of the public feel that even tougher
action is needed, and I certainly would not hesitate to introduce a Bill that
would achieve it.”
Another way to express an opposing
argument is to proceed by:
From: PhilipDavies@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Oppose Poll FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
FromOrganisation
Unknown
add
message “The hon. Gentleman says that everyone accepts that the Bill is needed
to tackle childhood obesity, yet a recent opinion poll showed that 76 per cent.
Of the public thought that the
restrictions would make no difference whatever to childhood obesity levels. I
am not entirely sure how he has worked out that everybody agrees with him. On
what basis does he take that view?”
The difference is that you don’t
create a new resolution that debater can select in order to fight the first
resolution. You just add an opposing argument to the current resolution. In the
case of a supporting poll, you can only proceed by adding an argument.
A liberal democrat member Martin
Horwood intervenes by mentioning another poll:
From: PhilipDavies@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Support Poll FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
FromOrganisation
Which?
add
message “Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the survey included in the Which?
submission on the Bill, in which 80 per cent. of people told us that they did
not think that TV advertisements for unhealthy foods should be allowed during
the times when the greatest number of children watch? There is evidence on both
sides of the debate.”
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Support Consultation FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Text:
FromOrganisation
PremierOrganisationRepresentingConsumers
add
message “That is a telling point from the premier organisation representing
consumers—something it has done for many decades.”
From: SimonBurns@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Create Amendment FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility
Text:
add
responsibility NigelGriffiths
add
message “Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is a very difficult subject
to get right? There are a number of changes and improvements that one can make
to help to deal with the problem, but does he recognises that more parental
responsibility is important? What does he think could be done to educate
parents and ensure that more of them take a responsible line in feeding their
children and seek to minimise the problems of obesity?.”
An amendment is a special case of
resolution. Proposing an amendment means that you support the resolution if the
amendment is accepted. An amendment should have a name (ParentalResponsibility)
and mention the resolution, which is to be amended.
The conservative Simon Burns
starts a process to amend the text but instead of writing explicitly how the
change he requires to do for the bill. He asks to Nigel Griffiths is amended
the text himself. So, Nigel Griffiths has the flexibility to deal with the amendment
the way he prefers. If the amendment was explicated, the assembly should status
about the amendment before accepting the bill.
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility
Text:
Name ReducingPesterPower
add
message “I certainly agree with the hon. Member, and I shall tell him what I
think can be done. We can diminish the pester power that children exert on
their parents, which is fostered by an advertising and food marketing industry
that has already been caught using websites that were so unacceptable to the
public that even some of the largest companies in Britain had to pull them. I
hope that there is support for backing parental responsibility, which is one of
the primary aims of my Bill.”
It is possible to give a name to
an opposing point in order to avoid the default name –NigelGriffiths1
The resolution is supported by:
From: JimDevine@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Support FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower
Text:
add
message “Central to my hon. Friend’s Bill is reinforcing assistance to parents.
I have had a lot of correspondence in my mailbag from constituents who support
the Bill and the action that he is taking..”
It is also possible to add
comments.
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Create Comment Resolution
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower
Text:
add
message “I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing that out, and for his
continuous support for the Bill. It is a direct response to what I believe
parents want, but more importantly, it is also a response to the scientific
review that our Government carried out, which reported towards the end of last
year. The foresight report of last October chillingly warned that a substantial
degree of intervention was required to have an impact on the rising trend of
obesity.”
From the conservative,
another reaction is
From: JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Oppose Point
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower
Text:
add
message “I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being generous in allowing
interventions. I wanted to stop him when he talked about little children’s
pester power about food. On the basis of seeing my own child and those of
parents whom I know, it is clear to me that pester power definitely applies to
toys, but does it apply to food? I have never heard the phrase, “I’ve got to
have that packet of crisps.” Children may want a packet of crisps, but it will
not necessarily be a packet of Walkers crisps. I do not agree that children are
so motivated by food advertising. In the end, it is the mum who does the shopping,
or maybe the dad, but definitely not the child.”
In this case, the opponent forgets
to create a new ID like
07-08.19.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower.ChildrenMarkIndifferent.
The system automatically creates an ID on the form:
07-08.19.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower.Opposition1
and returns
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk
Subject:
Oppose FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower.-JulieKirkbride1:
OK
The message is also broadcast to
others on the form:
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: NigelGriffiths
@parliament.uk
Subject:
Oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower.
-JulieKirkbride1
add
message “I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being generous in allowing
interventions. I wanted to stop him when he talked about little children’s
pester power about food. On the basis of seeing my own child and those of
parents whom I know, it is clear to me that pester power definitely applies to
toys, but does it apply to food? I have never heard the phrase, “I’ve got to
have that packet of crisps.” Children may want a packet of crisps, but it will
not necessarily be a packet of Walkers crisps. I do not agree that children are
so motivated by food advertising. In the end, it is the mum who does the
shopping, or maybe the dad, but definitely not the child.”
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower.
-JulieKirkbride1
Text:
add
message “The hon. Lady is one of the luckiest parents in the country. She must
be one of the few whose children have not pestered them for fizzy drinks or
candy bars. Perhaps she may care to write a treatise, which we can publicise so
that every parent in the country can benefit from her near-unique experience.”
This opposition-to-opposition is
recorded under the ID
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower.
-JulieKirkbride1.-NigelGriffiths1
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
Subject:
Oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower.
-JulieKirkbride1.-NigelGriffiths1: OK
From:
MikeWeir@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Oppose FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower.
-JulieKirkbride1.-NigelGriffiths1
Add
message “Does the hon. Gentleman accept that pestering is not just for specific
products, but for such things as McDonald’s burgers or Kentucky Fried Chicken?
Many of us have had to say to our children, “I am not taking you there,” but
they see such places on the television. Pester power is not just for Cheerios
or whatever happens to be advertised.”
This opposition-to-opposition is recorded under the ID Oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower.
-JulieKirkbride1.-NigelGriffiths1.-MikeWeir1
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: NigelGriffiths
@parliament.uk
Subject:
Oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower.
-JulieKirkbride1.-NigelGriffiths1.-MikeWeir1: OK
As Mike Weir did not express
himself before, this opposition to the opposition will be recorded in term of
voting as equivalent to
Support
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower
Mike Weir can however override
this implicit voting by expressing explicitly an opposition to
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower
By a message, on the form
Oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Oppose FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower.-JulieKirkbride1
Text:
add
message “The hon. Lady is one of the luckiest parents in the country. She must
be one of the few whose children have not pestered them for fizzy drinks or
candy bars. Perhaps she may care to write a treatise, which we can publicize so
that every parent in the country can benefit from her near-unique experience.”
The labour Lyn Bown had her
support by
From:
LynBrown@parliament.uk To:
HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Support
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower
Text:
add
message “I thank my hon. Friend for being so generous in giving way. Before I
came to the House I did work in the community, part of which was about parents
and food. The message that I received from parents was that children would eat
only the foods that they recognised and that, unfortunately, recognition came
largely from television. The other problem that parents had was the
accessibility of different foods. Many of them without cars found themselves
having to shop at corner shops, which rely on highly advertised foods rather
than fresh and affordable foods.”
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Support FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ParentalResponsibility.ReducingPesterPower
Text:
add
message “My hon. Friend speaks with great authority and reflects what food
nutritionists, as well as Nick Nairn, Jamie Oliver and others, are saying. Her
remarks illustrate the impact of pester power and the value of advertising.
After all, why do we have such a large and successful advertising industry?”
The labour Jim Dowd mentions a
poll, which is relevant to the question of Pester Power. Even as the poll is
from the House of Commons, the poll has no authority to enforce the acceptation
of the bill by the rule of the House of Commons. An informative resolution can
be linked to a point.
From: JimDowd@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Create Poll FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ReducingPesterPower
InFavor
FromOrganisation
Ourself
add
message “I congratulate my hon. Friend on his success in the ballot and on
introducing the Bill. In response to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss
Kirkbride), I point out that when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr.
Burns) and I served on the Select Committee on Health some half a dozen years
ago or so, we conducted an inquiry on obesity. I am sure that the hon.
Gentleman remembers it well, as he played a very constructive role. He will
recall that we came across a company—I have a pretty clear impression that it
was Kellogg’s, and if it was not I apologise unreservedly—that had on its website
a marketing strategy that actually encouraged the use of pester power. It
quoted it as a strategy for selling its products. That pester power clearly
applied to children, not adults.”
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Comment
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.ReducingPesterPower.Poll1
Text:
add message “My hon.
Friend is absolutely right. That report was critical in ensuring that the
Government’s views on obesity were taken seriously and that, more importantly,
society and Parliament took obesity seriously. More recently, Which? produced
two reports. One was “Food Fables”, on the myths that the industry had put out
about how responsible its marketing was. My hon. Friend has given one example,
and I shall give another later. The other report was “Cartoon Heroes and
Villains”, on the use of cartoons by such companies to lure children into
having more of their products than is healthy. The views of my hon. Friend and
other hon. Members who have spoken in support of the Bill are reflected by the
more than 200 right hon. and hon. Members who have signed early-day motion 445,
supporting the 9 pm watershed. »
The conservative Nigel Evans
adopts the strategy to attack a point of the bill.
From:
NigelEvans@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: create
Amendment FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Text:
Name LessHealthyProduct
add message “The term
used in the Bill, “less healthy food”, is fairly subjective, but I assume that
it would encapsulate products such as those of McDonald’s. The Bill refers not
just to broadcast advertising but to point-of-sale material. Youngsters walking
down Victoria street past McDonald’s would come to one of those plastic Ronald
McDonald characters, which I suspect would be made illegal under the Bill. Does
the hon. Gentleman really want to go down in history as the man who killed
Ronald McDonald? »
The motion to amend, supposes that
Nigel Evans will accept the bill if the amendment is done.
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.LessHealthyProduct
Text:
Add message “I
do not want to go down in history—I am sure that this is true of the hon.
Gentleman, too—as the person who put the health of our advertising industry and
of McDonald’s before the health of our children. He is mistaken, because there
is nothing subjective about the provision. Clause 2(1) clearly refers to the
Food Standards Agency definition of foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar.
Out of 1,484
early-day motions, I am glad to say that early-day motion 445 came in the top
10 for the number of hon. Members’ signatures. Sadly, many hon. Members who
signed the early-day motion cannot be with us today, because they are
campaigning in the London mayoral elections or in their local council
elections. I have received apologies from strong supporters of the Bill on both
sides of the House. I am especially grateful to Which?, Cancer Research UK,
Diabetes UK, Sustain, the Children’s Food Campaign, the British Heart
Foundation, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the
National Union of Teachers, Unison and many others for their support for the
Bill, which aims to control the advertising, marketing and promotion of less
healthy food and drink products to children.
The Bill
follows Government action to ban adverts targeted at children’s TV programmes.
What a generation ago was a treat—a bar of candy, a box of chocolates or a
fizzy drink—is now taken for granted. Economic prosperity has made such treats
commonplace. Of course, that is not enough for some companies, which have
commissioned labs to come up with artificial smells outside food shops to act
as a magnet to pressurise shoppers—at such outlets what smells fresh is totally
artificial. It is difficult for children, who must learn that items that were
treats to my generation are, when taken in quantity, damaging to their health.”
Another conservative:
From:
ChristopherChope@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: support
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.LessHealthyProduct
Text:
Add
message “We should be debating the issue of being “taken in quantity”. If the
Bill were to become law, unhealthy foods would include Marmite, honey and
cheese, which are not unhealthy if they are eaten in moderation.”
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.LessHealthyProduct
Text:
Add message “The
definition would not include those foods. I urge the hon. Member to study what
the FSA has actually categorised. In one short generation, as economic
prosperity has risen so abuses have occurred on the parts of both consumers and
the producers of goods. As I said, parents have told me that their efforts to
educate their
children on
reasonable consumption are being fatally undermined by the relentless
advertising and marketing to their children of food products that are high in
fats, sugars and salts. Frankly, they are sick of their children being
manipulated, and they are sick of pester power.”
The labour:
From:
KerryMcCarthy@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Support
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Text:
Add message “My hon.
Friend has focused on the impact on obesity in children of consuming junk food
and the influence of advertising. Does he accept that the consumption of junk
food can have a significant impact on children’s behaviour in terms of
attention deficit disorder, which can occur if they consume food containing
lots of additives, and hyperglycaemia? Studies of children in young offenders
institutions have shown how changes in diet can improve behaviour.”
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Support
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.+KerryMcCarthy1
Text:
Add message “That is a
critical point. That is the reason why local schools in my constituency—I am
sure that this is true around the country—have taken out the fizzy drinks
machines and reported great benefits in children’s responses. Incidentally,
that is one of the reasons why I strongly support universal school lunches,
which would allow children to see what goes into a good meal. I congratulate
the hon. Members who are taking forward that cause, which I strongly support.”
The labour Brian Iddon had another plan in head. He wants
college to have free meals for children. A good strategy is to create a
campaign to enforce free meal for children and to get support for this campaign
by proposing a transaction:
From:
BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create
Resolution FreeMealAtSchool
Text:
Content undefined
Offer Transaction
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.+KerryMcCarthy1
Add message “I am glad
that my hon. Friend has mentioned the role of education. Will he join me in
congratulating Bolton council on committing itself to introducing free school
meals for all first-time primary school children in September? That will lead
those children down the correct nutritional path, rather than down the path of
bringing junk food into school for lunch.”
Nigel Griffiths accepts the transaction. An agreed transaction
means that Nigel supports the resolution about FreeMealAtSchool and Brian
supports the bill.
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Support
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren. .+KerryMcCarthy1
Text:
Add message “I
certainly congratulate Bolton council. In the manifestos for the next election,
I want to see all political parties pledge to support the funding of universal
school meals, which could enhance not only children’s health, but the
educational environment. Universal school meals could give children benefits
that last a lifetime. Clause 1 defines “advertising and promotion”, and lists
the types of media that will come within its scope, including the internet,
which I shall mention in a minute. Clause 2 refers to “less healthy” products,
as defined by proposed section 7(c) to the Food Standards Act 1999—such
foodstuffs are high in fat, sugar or salt. It specifies that such foods should
not be advertised, marketed or promoted between the hours of 5.30 am and 9 pm.
The 9 pm watershed has been selected for two reasons. First, evidence cited in
the Ofcom report indicates that, among all the options that it examined two
years ago, a 9 pm watershed would screen out up to 95 per cent. of junk food
advertisements from popular TV programmes watched by children. Secondly, the 9
pm watershed is already accepted for TV adverts for gambling. I commend the
Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for his work in his former post as
Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, when he achieved that
watershed by threatening legislation. I hope that my right hon. Friend the
Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport will not hesitate to
do the same to protect our children’s health.”
From:
NigelEvans@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Text:
Add message “Having
killed off Ronald McDonald, the hon. Gentleman is moving on to kill off children’s
television. Does he realise that one of the unintended consequences of the Bill
is that it will remove a substantial amount of advertising from children’s
television? In that case, why would it be in the interest of TV producers to
produce children’s programming? The Bill would have an enormous impact on such
programming.”
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren. -NigelEvans2
Text:
Add message “When the
hon. Member previously intervened, I asked him whether he would put the health
of the advertising industry before the health of our children; sadly, he has
answered that question.”
From: MartinHorwood@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2
Text:
Add message “The BBC
channels CBeebies and CBBC dominate younger children’s programming. They have
no advertising at all, so they would not be damaged in the slightest, and they
provide a good, educational service for children.”
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: support
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2.- MartinHorwood1
Text:
Add message “The BBC
channels CBeebies and CBBC dominate younger children’s programming. They have
no advertising at all, so they would not be damaged in the slightest, and they provide
a good, educational service for children.”
The conservative
From:
EdwardVaizey@parliament.uk To:
HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: oppose FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2.-MartinHorwood1
Text:
Add message “Since the
advertising restrictions were introduced, children’s television commissioning
has fallen off a cliff. The BBC effectively has a monopoly, which nobody wants,
while other channels only carry American imports. Is the hon. Gentleman going
to put the health of American television ahead of the health of British
television?”
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To:
HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: oppose
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2.-MartinHorwood1
Text:
Add message “The hon.
Member is advocating putting the health of American television before the
health of British children. His hyperbole, as a journalist, does him no credit,
because the truth is that prior to the restrictions—they were rather small, and
came in only in summer last year—all the evidence showed that tens of millions
of pounds’ worth of children’s programming was no longer being commissioned in
Britain, and that was the case before a single bit of legislation had been put
in place. Small and welcome steps have been taken so far and they are being
evaluated in full by Ofcom. However, Ofcom’s evidence indicates that less than
half of the programmes watched by young children are affected by the
restrictions, which is why they are not very effective.”
Julie Kirkbride attacks by an enquiry.
From: JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Create Enquiry
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.LastBillEffectif
Text:
Add
message “It is fairly obvious that not everyone agrees with the hon.
Gentleman’s Bill—there is a fair amount of disagreement. Given that there is
already a ban on advertising during children’s programmes, would it not be more
appropriate to determine whether that ban is effective? If that were determined
to be the case, he might be better able to persuade those of us who are
extremely sceptical and think that this is just a “something must be done”
Bill, rather than a Bill that will have any effect; indeed, this Bill might
even have perverse consequences. We could then move forward in the knowledge
that some science backs up the Bill.”
A neutral way to add information to a point is to add
comments. A comment does not suppose that the resolution is supported or
opposed.
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Comment FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.LastBillEffectif
Add message “The hon.
Member makes a very valuable point. However, let me tell her that if such
well-funded industries as the food processing and advertising industries
thought that her conclusions were likely to be valid, they would have
commissioned their own research and presented it to us. The fact that they have
not done so tells me a lot.”
Miss Kirkbride rose—
The next answer helps to understand the difference between
processes bases on oral debating as it takes place in the House of Commons.
Electronic Democracy starts from one individuals and his reform. And,
transaction is one of the key mechanisms to get an initial support. The House
of Commons should have previously some local debating inside smaller groups in
order to select ideas with the highest support.
Nigel Griffiths: I will, of
course, give way to the hon. Lady, because she will want to explain her
statement that there is considerable opposition to the Bill. I concede that an
early-day motion was tabled against my early-day motion. Mine attracted 211
signatures and the other attracted nine signatures, although I notice that it
has only seven signatories listed today. It is one of the few early-day motions
that have lost supporters in the three months during which it has been tabled,
and two people signed both early-day motions.
From: JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Oppose Comment FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.LastBillEffectif.
NigelGriffiths1
Text:
add message “I
will set that one aside; the hon. Gentleman can explain it later. The ban on
advertising fatty products on children’s television has been in place for only
one year, so there has hardly been time to assess its consequences.”
At each stage
of the debate, parliamentary can check the status. By the command, status, you
can get the result of the position of the debate according the issue. The
“status” is deducted in an implicit way in the case that individual express
accordingly to an informative motion instead of the main resolution.
From: JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: status
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk To: JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk
Subject:
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren: Debated
Text:
Main Motion FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
InFavor 67
Against 4
NotManifest: 575
Prioritary Incidental
Motion
0
Secondary
Incidental Motion
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.Poll
InFavor 3
Against 4
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.LessHealthyProduct
InFavor 6
Against 3
The
non-manifested are supposing to vote according to the motion. The number of self-interest
will be decreased by the usage of delegate and agreement of self-interest.
What would really take place in Electronic
Democracy?
Electronic
democracy is about resolving all issues of convergence and so a perfect
electronic democratic system supposes that there is no parallel dealing of
convergence.
The issue and resolution couple
The previous
chapter was to translate a House of Commons debate into a real electronic
debate. The first action is to consider that political message is based on the
couple issue and resolution. So, the first action is to log issues and propose
resolutions and to try to group resolutions around one issue. Then, the every
player will comment his resolution according to others resolutions.
The first action
is to class resolution in two categories informative or effective. Informative
resolution has the purpose to learn more about the issue before taking an
effective resolution. Then, the each debater will offer a classication of
resolution according to:
§
Cost,
§
Effectiveness
§
Flexibility,
§
BetterRiskManagement,
In the
preceding example, we can consider four effectives resolutions
Nigel Griffifts
defends the bill 07-08 19 forbidding all advertising about less healthy food
for children,
Food Standards Act 1999 concerns only advertising
during children program,
Brian Iddon
wants free meal to be given at School,
Julie Kirkbride
wants to increase parent responsibility. Let’s suppose that she militates for
parent control programming box that offers parents the possibility to filter
advertising. If their children are not on the way to fatness, there are no
points to censure advertising. But, if children are getting fat, they can to
select a filter and to block the advertisement.
From: JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
support resolution ParentControlProgrammingBox
Text:
Prefer
ParentControlProgrammingBox Over
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren on Flexibility, Effectiveness
Prefer ParentControlProgrammingBox Over FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
on Flexibility, Effectiveness
Prefer ParentControlProgrammingBox Over FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool
on Flexibility, Cost
It is also to support several
resolutions that you consider incompatible between them, which means
that only one resolution can be executed, not both.
From: BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
support resolution Over FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool,
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Text:
MutuallyExclusive
FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool, FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool Over FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
on Flexibility, Effectiveness
FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool Over FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
on Flexibility, Effectiveness
Bringing interest to your issue
Individual contract of interest
The command
list debated issue
delivered issue classified
by the number of participant to
the resolution. With this command, members can concentrate their interest
towards issue who are on the point to have a resolution voted. Other command
likes
list issue -k{keyword} issue -sdebated offers a
ranking of issue filtered by a keyword
-s is for status
The largest part of political activity is to get interest
from other debaters to our issue.
The first mechanism is to create a transaction in the way: I
support your resolution if you support my resolution
You agree for a join support. The idea of a contract of
interest is to agree to take position (support or opposition) once in a specific
period with the issue creates by another participant in exchange from him to
take position in one of your issue. By increasing the number of contract of
interest, you increase the ranking of your issue and resolution and so the
chance to have something finalized. Contract on interest are on issue, not on
resolution. You have the right to select any resolution or to create new one
according to the issue.
From: BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: JulieKirkbride@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Propose ContractOfInterest weekly
In this case, Brian Iddon proposes
to Julie to establish a weekly contract of interest with Julie. Julie will
answer by:
From: JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk To:
BrianIddon@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Accept ContractOfInterest weekly
Then,
From: BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: JulieKirkbride@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Move ChildObesity
In taking position, Julie will get
a credit of 1 interest that she can use at any time to force Brian to take
position on one of her issue. Brian will have an –1 interest debit that will be
paid back if he takes position on a issue marketed by Julie.
Collective contract of interest
A similar mechanism is to register
for collective interest.
From: BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Engage ContractOfInterest montlhy
Text:
Number
5
In doing so, you engage yourself to take position five time
a month about issues proposed randomly monthly from other members. In
return, you get credit. The credit will be paid to propose your issue to other members.
From: BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Move ChildObesity
Text:
Spend
5
Five of your credits will be spent to increase the interest
on ChildObesity issue. You can spend more credit than you have. If so, you will
have an interest debt.
It is also possible to orientate stochastically by adding
preferential keyword:
From: BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Update ContractOfInterest montlhy
Text:
Keyword
Obesity 10
Keyword
Drug 5
It does not means that Obesity will be the only subject
presents but it will be shown with a high priority 10. Point relative to the
drug keyword will be shown in a lower priority.
Keyword ranking
The issue will be ranked by keyword. If you create
an issue, you can associate it to any number of keyword but if you select more
than one keyword. A weight will be applied to each keyword and so the ranking
will be decreased. For example,
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: update issue
ChildObesity
Text:
Keyword Child 5
Keyword Obesity 10
ChildObesity issue will have a ranking weight of
5/15 on Child and 10/15 on obesity. If ChildObesity has a manifestation of 113,
his total ranking grade on key word Child will be 113/ {Number of member} *
5/15
This grade will be used to sort issue on the use
of the command
list issue -kChild issue -sdebated
How to be select democratically capable candidate to
responsible position?
In present day
assembly, debaters can manifest simply by voting. Which is simple and guarantee
a large participation? But, it has the inconvenience that there are very little
insensitive to build up an intelligent decision. You can even vote at random. Who will check? What will you lose?
Even, the things are worst when you have to vote for persons from who you know
virtually nothing. You never see their curriculum vitae, and have to rely on
the images create by their journalist friends. The current television oriented
democracy is limited by a lack of memory.
On the contrary
by being based on confidentiality and not on secret, electronic
democracy has a memory. Electronic Democracy offers the possibility to
remember your vote. The initiative or
law that you supports or opposes, give some insights about your interest and
competence in the topic and so your political ability in the topic can be
graded. Then, the grade is used to sort all the members (and not only the
candidate). And then, according to your grade, you can decide to be candidate
or not.
In doing so, it gave a motivation to take
part in a debate. The debate is an opportunity to prove your interest and
expertise in order to position to succeed in a nomination. The principle of
nomination is to offer each individual to set up rules in order to give a grade
to each member about the compatibility of their talent and the position.
For example,
Nigel Griffiths believe that the following grading rule can be used to apply to
select the next director of the FoodStandardsAgency.
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create
selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
Vote +10
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
Vote +5 FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool
Julie Kirkbride
follows other selective rules and using – to signify that an opposition should
add been manifested and not a support (+). In this case, a non-manifestation is
not equal to an opposition but to a neutral position. The implication is that
member who does not manifest themselves are grade null to the selection process
and so have no chance to be selected. It is a high incentive to manifest and
shows yourself.
From:
JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk To:
HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create
selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
Vote
3 ParentControlProgrammingBox
Vote
-1 FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
The
grading of the rule is weighted in order to be sure that each member has an
equal weight in the grading process. The total weight for Nigel is 25 and for
Julie is 3 + abs(-1) = 4. So, the two selection process will be merged into the
merge selection rules which is:
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren -1/4 + 10/25 = 0.15
ParentControlProgrammingBox ¾ = 0.75
FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999 10/25 =0.4
FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool
5/25 = 0.2
From this grading rule,
a candidate who will have supported ParentControlProgrammingBox,
FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999, oppose FoodProductsMarketingToChildren,
not manifest FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool,
will get a grade of:
0.15 * -1 + 0.75 * 1 + .4 * 1 = 1
Another candidate supports only
FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999 and gets a grade 0.4.
The merge selection rules will be displayed, and update
according to the political process. The judgments concerning initiatives, can
change and so some rules can be inversed with the time. The change will be
however continuous and so the system should highly motivate members to
participate to the voting.
Then, the organization can consider that the five best grade
candidates will be authorized to do a political campaign for the position. The
system has the advantage to get rid of the lack of transparent in the pre
selection process of current political party.
Exclusion
rule on the base of abusive debating argument
The preceding House Of Commons debate has been a
polite debate. Opposition manifests itself democratically. You can however
suppose that opposition manifests itself on the form of accusation. For
example, one of the accusation type are: Lie, PoliticalSynonym(*),
Misunformation, Manipulation, Demagogy
For example, Nigel Griffiths could mark his
opposition to Martin Horwoord by an accusation.
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To:
HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: accuse
Misunformation FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2.-MartinHorwood1
Text:
Add message “The hon.
Member is advocating putting the health of American television before the
health of British children. His hyperbole, as a journalist, does him no credit,
because the truth is that prior to the restrictions—they were rather small, and
came in only in summer last year—all the evidence showed that tens of millions
of pounds’ worth of children’s programming was no longer being commissioned in
Britain, and that was the case before a single bit of legislation had been put
in place. Small and welcome steps have been taken so far and they are being
evaluated in full by Ofcom. However, Ofcom’s evidence indicates that less than
half of the programmes watched by young children are affected by the
restrictions, which is why they are not very effective.”
In this case, every support to Nigel Griffiths
point will be considered to be also a support to the accusation. An opposition
will be considered to be an opposition to the accusation. Then, it will be
possible to block Martin Horwood of an election to a nomination by adding a
filter rule like
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create
selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
Vote +10
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
Vote +5 FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool
Exclude Misinformation 0.02 Last5Years
Exclude Accusation
0.05 Last5Years
The rule means that if we divide the number accusation
on grant of misinformation by the total of manifestation. It will be exclude of
the selection process if misinformation accusation forms more than 2 % of the
manifestation. Accusation is a general term gathering all kind of accusation.
Martin Horwood can protect him from the accusation
by a retraction on the form:
From:
MartinHorrwood@parliament.uk To:
HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Retract FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2.-MartinHorwood1
In this case, the point
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2.-MartinHorwood1 is removed and so
it can not be use for an accusation.
(*) See Key Concepts: Hierarchisation of the law
framework
Categorisation
of debaters
Class presupposition
Another way to force individual to retract or
amend their position during a debating process, can be achieved by the
categorization of the debater. Any number of categorizations can be created and
can be for example: StoicPhilosopher, Capitalist, Racist,
IslamistFundamentalist, SupporterOfLegalizeRoberry, MacDonaldLobbyist,
ExpertEconomist, Spammer, SubmiterOfResolutionWithDoublePurpose(1) etc…
For example,
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create PersonalCategory
MacDonaldLobbyist
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Accuse
MacDonaldLobbyist
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren. -NigelEvans2
Text:
Add message “When the hon. Member
previously intervened, I asked him whether he would put the health of the
advertising industry before the health of our children; sadly, he has answered
that question.”
If it is an opposition,
the term accuse will be use if it is a title, the term Grant will be use. For
example, Nigel Evans can revendicate himself the title MacDonaldLobbyist
From:
NigelEvans@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Revendicate
MacDonaldLobbyist
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren. -NigelEvans2
Text:
Then, the selection
rule can be upgraded by:
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create
selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
Vote +10
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
Vote +5 FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool
Exclude Misinformation 0.02 Last5Years
Exclude Accusation 0.05 Last5Years
Exclude MacDonaldLobbyist 0.01
Last5Years
But, Nigel Evans might have a different view and include the rule:
From:
NigelEvans@parliament.uk To:
HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create
selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
IncludeOnly MacDonaldLobbyist
0.01 Last5Years
Which means that only individual consider like
MacDonaldLobbyist in 1 % of the intervention can apply for the job.
(1) See resolution with two issues
Principle holder
Debater can characterize themselves
in order to improve their chance to a nomination by revendicating principle.
Principle creator can consider that this principle is a subclass of another
principle and oppose to another principle. They can be accused from other
debater to not follow those principles.
From:
NigelEvans@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create
Principle MarketingRightInRelationToMoneyHold
Text
MarketingRightInRelationToMoneyHold
ChildOf FreedomOfExpression
Add
description “Money is a valid and single discriminator to decide who is allowed
to market and who is not allow”
Then, a principle can be opposed or supported in order to be
use for a nomination.
From:
NigelEvans@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Oppose Principle
MarketingRightInRelationToMoneyHold
FAQ
Is www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk anti democratic because many people do
not know how to use a computer?
The process of delegation can be
done through post mail of a delegation document without any computer. The
delegate could enter himself that he has the default delegation right of a
citizen which does not desire to use www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk. He will just need to show and record signed form that it
has the right to increase his voting right by delegation for a limited time
from an identified citizen. In this matter, delegation will always be far more
democratic than parliamentary representation. The process develops inside
political party to select representative has several drawbacks. Firstly, it is largely unknown to the
profane. It is more related to the communicative skills than in the competence
of the topics to debate. It is dependant to hidden relational network close to
most of us.
It should also be differentiated a
limitation due to human decision to a limitation due to the reality (the name
that atheist gives to god). The restriction to the number of MP to 764 is a
human rule and so it is not democratic.
Does the support writing a necessity in the law and politics?
Not really. Even today in India,
many tribes reject the writing law to protect their oral tradition. One
argument is that the oral law is established in a more democratic way than the
imposed writing law. Another issue is that oral law should be learnt. And so,
the human brain automatically get rid of legal incoherence by initiating a
debate oral law has to be structured in our brain in a coherent to stay in
order. Two thousands years ago, celtic druid gave the same issue to oppose the
writing of their custom. But, as one can understand by reading the bible, the
writing law got a fundamental problem. How can so many laws not contradict
themselves at some point? The
contradictions are opportunities for the upper class to abuse by exploiting the
contradiction of the laws.
As I explain in my book, “The day
when politician will debate about our genes”, electronic law gathers the
benefit of the both world of the oral law and writing law. Like in the oral
law, everybody has an equal possibility to change the law. Like in the writing
law, the law is transmitted to one generation to another and so the
civilization can progress according to the law system. The constitutional law
is the genome of human civilization. If the legal structure cannot evolve,
civilization cannot either. The Islamic world with one of the most rigid law
the humankind ever had paid a severe economical price to this extreme rigidity.
Expert in Artificial Intelligence
programming knows that rule programming offers the possibility to detect the
contradiction of the rule to guarantee the legality of new laws.
If too many people take place in a debate, might it be easy to
block the process and make www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk completely
inefficient to converge to a solution?
www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk is not based on a vote after the debate but on the
progressive manifestation of support and opposition. This is a natural way that
political movement and religion develops and so it is more natural than
“voting”. Most Issue might be classed not optional so in some case. The
promoter and the supporter will enforce the issue if to do nothing might appear
too risky.
Is an electronic democracy a tyranny of the majority? In this case,
the redistribution practiced as legalized robbery will become the rule of the
game.
www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk is
about voting law and not about budget and tax. The law is equal for all.
Fundamentally, the law forbids doing and is not supposed to become a duty. To
have somebody engage to do something, an agreement should be established.
Totalitarian believes that they can oblige individuals to do by law. Without
the establishment of “punishment”, you cannot oblige to work and cannot oblige
them to pay tax. If they don’t agree, they will stop working, studying,
retiring or work abroad. The easiest way to practice tax avoidance is to refuse
to be productive to refuse to pay taxes. So, www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
differentiates law to action. Action needs an agreement in proportion to the
engagement. And so, the voting rights are weighted by the amount of property
invested.
How can electronic democracy guarantee the secret of our opinion?
The secrecy of vote is a danger to
uncorrupt politics. In fact, most corruption appears under the cover of
secrecy. Concerning voting, you can never be sure that no fraud occurs. You can
only have the faith that everything is regular.
In the ancient time, politics and
opinion were forced out by the argument of magical power. In our modern time in India, many people are
suspicious about voting in the ballot box because they know magicians who have
the power to increase ballots by magical power. Politicians are selling us that
the secret voting process is safe. Of course, they cannot be safe! When you have secrecy, you always got a
clever guy who finds a way to trick the system. Look to the levitation magic
trick of David Copperfield! You cannot find the trick. Does it mean that there
is no trick? What is the relation between I cannot find the fraud and there is
no trick. In the current democratic process, you cannot find any trick. But, is
it a proof that there is no fraud? There is no relation. Professional political
(magicians) know how to fraud in a way that you do not know. In politics, secrecy is dangerous, because
rogues promote secrecy. Only confidentially of the vote could guarantee the
absence of fraud. Confidentially means that the access of the system is limited
to elected number of controllers who will access to the information in the
system and call to the debater to check their identity and see if the content
in the database of not my changes. As it might be always possible to attack the
result by an inquiry, all frauds will end up to be found out. In the current
voting system of secrecy, frauds are supposed to not exist because secrecy
hides them. A more serious related issue is the problem of the personal
interest in the result of “voting”.
Most deliberative assemblies forbid interest party to vote for a project in
which voter might get a direct enrichment from the projects. For example, a
member of an administrative board of the “Ville de Paris” cannot vote for the
attribution of a construction project to the company Bouygues if he is a
shareholder of this company. This principle could be extended to large assembly
of the size of a country to reduce the risk of personal enrichment of interest
group by diverting taxation toward them. The application of laws against
political activity towards personal enrichment is not compatible with the idea
of secrecy.
Another case against secrecy is
the right to condition your vote to some achievement. If your vote is
secret, you cannot condition it to a result because you cannot prove that you
really vote for this person. In Electronic Democracy, you can offer condition
vote contract instead of simple vote. If this is done or verified true, you
have my vote.
The last case against the secrecy
of the vote is the problem of the voting contract. Voting should be a “legal
contract” but it is not because the elector is not known, and the contract
supposes that all party should be known. A contract means that the elector can
add condition to the mandate and exercise a pressure that “breaking” the
contract and stopping the mandate follows those conditions.
Is
electronic democracy a risk for the social peace and the national unity?
The society evolves in the
political confrontation between different views. As every new political
concept, electronic democracy divides the society into two camps. Electronic
Democracy divides into two camps: the political class and the productive class.
In the productive class, I include workers, salary men, and competitive
business normal. In the political class, I include politician, journalist,
technocrat, high rank civil servant, syndicalism and politico-capitalist. I
include in politico-capitalist, businessmen who got their position more due to
their political relation than their competitive sense of business. Bernard
Tapie is one of them.
The economic risk is however very
low in a sense that it does not strengthen the unity of the private sector.
Historically, political opposition, which had gathered the private sector
against tax collectors, always follows by several century of economical
prosperity (English Peasant revolution 1381, Protestant Peasant War 1524,
American Revolution 1776, and French revolution 1789). The opposite is true.
Most of the civilization that fails to achieve this revolution, economically
collapse and move towards strengthens of the political class by the so-called
Marxist revolution (Russia, China, Viet Nam).
What are the reasons for a society to create
electronic parliament?
Since the creation of an elective
monarchy (the fifth republic) in 1958 by the General De Gaulle, and on behalf
of the new technology, computerized indirect taxation and centralized media
power, the political class has succeed to increase his real concrete political
power to the expense to the productive private sector beyond any historical
record.
The first reason has been the
complete ignorance of the economical mechanism from the debater of the
political world and major mistakes on the part of politician. Some of them are
the Marxism, inspired politics. The book wrote by an auto proclaimed political
economist, who had no experience of the financial world and real decision
process of the Capitalist world. These incomplete views of political economy,
praises by politicians lead to the creation of disastrous politics like the communist
state or the welfare state, the full cost of the latter is yet to come.
The second reason has been the
division of the society into two groups: tax paying societies and tax living
societies. The development of computerization had increased considerably the
power of the latest class. Now, taxation is mainly hidden and undirected and so
the main part of the tax paying is unaware of its extent to the points that
politician succeeds to make them believe that they also belong to the group of
the tax living class. Those privilegious are mainly forward far away in future
(like welfare pension and health care) with a very little chance to be granted
if the financial community decides to restrain the financial credit of the
state. The lack of political abilities of the productive class had leaded
to the development of a sub class of the political class: the media, which
included journalists, social professional. The purpose of this sub class has
been to gauge or eventually to increase the level of awareness of the
productive class in order to facilitate the level of leniently towards the huge
taxation system.
The third reason has been ever
increasing debts against future generation. The future generation cannot be a
political actor. Their interest is never ever scarified to the benefit of
present political forces. This last point is also related to the lack of
interest of the productive class to politics. Considering that people are
interested to learn if they can use this knowledge to improve their life or the
one of the future generation. Members of the productive class had virtually no
chance to access any real executive political position in the state apparatus.
Most of those positions are now hold by state professionals.
The fourth reason has been the
creation of various statuses, which are not other than privilegious or
opportunity to benefit of corruption. And due, law of evolution of the society
and the second principle of Entropy, candidate become more and more excite by
corruption opportunities than by personal achievement towards the nation. One
of them is the not so useful concept of syndicate, which sell themselves of
protector of the workers but is in fact more in the business to find fraud
opportunities to divert the payment of the pension system toward their own
banking account.
Can
we use unscientific political speculation based on philosophical beliefs?
Present day politician use the
argument of lack of scientific evidence to prevent to block speculative debate
based on contrarians views. This is completely anti democratic. All
speculations are valid except otherwise proven. Scientific evidence should be
brought to oppose the speculation. And not, the speculation is refutated
because nobody finds a scientific way to prove it. After having stressed this
point, I consider there are more to learn in the politico-religious fight
between roman pagans, the father of church and Christian heretics of the Roman
Empire to study about large political debate and the convergence of a large
number of people than from the modern political science. The politics is about
taking decisions. And, we never had enough evidence to really scientifically
prove the decision. So, the argument of science is just to prevent debating and
stop the democracy. The church is however informative in an example of
speculative debate. The Church bases his debate on scripture. In www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk, the
experimental science will be used as a “bible” in order to obtain evidence
against false speculation. Politics are before all about taking the right
decision and just secondary about having everybody taking part. Proven false
speculation should be removed of the debate on the face of “scientific” or
experimental evidence.
How to avoid the political supremacy of a few over others?
Individuals have different issues
and revendications. Each of us has some political revendication, which are of
no priority interest to others. In politics, individuals want to be listened
and usually have no interest to listen others. Two thousands years ago in
Israel, a great political campaigner did not hesitate to display magic power,
claiming to talk of the name of God, to succeed to have his political claim
accepted by a large audience. Nowadays, real political practices are not more
democratic equity sharing of time and talk ratio. A good relation with the
television makes you exist in politics… And so, journalists and politicians
maintain good relation to support mutually their career. This fraternization between
politician and journalist create the condition of an orientation of information
toward personal interest.
Currently, Internet is used in two
modes:
§
web site and the diffusion
mode,
§
email in order to exchange
between two individuals.
Both modes are inadequate to use
Internet toward a democratic approach of politics. Internet offers the
possibility to do politics really democratically.
But, who have the right to bring his revendication in front
of the political agenda? The King, the president, TV news journalist, Carl
Zero, the pope, the richest man of the world or all of us in an equal selection
process on revendication… The only way is to have an account of others
revendications. You read it according to the accounting of your readings.
www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk will propose your revendication for reading
randomly to any reader according to the total of other people revendication ,
you had previously read.
In order to increase the chances
to reach individuals interested by your revendication, you classify it in a
directory or add key word. The fact to add keywords will not change the number
of individuals reading your political revendication. The number of readers will
be strictly according to the number of revendication you read. For each revendication
you had read, you could reject it because the cause does not filled according
to your moral rule.