Make your own free website on Tripod.com

From religion to politics
New Rapport
Home
New Rapport
protestant
Electronic Democracy: How to make politics affordable to every citizen?
The revival of the law
Human genome
Selection of political revendication
Specificification Document
Church
Western Civilisation
Karma
The day when the master of the world wil controle our genome
Who should do what ?

Enter subhead content here

Electronic Democracy: How to end up the reign of generalist professional politicians

-

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 = 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.

Enter supporting content here