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 citizen on an equal basis.
Objective
Electronic Democracy will bring the
benefit of prehistoric tribe approach customs bases on oral but democratic laws to the current civilizations of writing laws.
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 politically 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 and hidden relation process become 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
political power 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
restrained functionality as 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 the issue. An act resolution has the purpose to solve
the problem. An experimental resolution is a solving resolution applied to a smaller scope in order to test the effectiveness
of the resolution. 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 follow 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
the issues.
Readers do not ignore than currently
99 % of the real politics took place before voting and 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 old law should
be changed first
-
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 decide and initiate the act of redistribution. And, then you get a political synonym, which is creating a conceptual
confusion and corrupter 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 “fight against inflation”.
But, “taxing the rich”
enriches the politician and civil servant and 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 key 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 practice the trading contract will have
a maturity of and expiration date. 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, power 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 about the trust in their 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 separated political organization (political party, city, syndicate, association, public companies, countries…).
So, citizens will have one profile and as many avatar as he likes. 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. The debater will go on the web site of www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk and download edemocracy.exe and put it in a directory of his own choice and then run it
by typing edemocracy.exe.
And then, the command prompt
of edemocracy.exe appears and demanding to the user to enter his user id and password or to create one.
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>change 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>change avatar AlbertDemParty
AlbertDemParty|eng>change 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
keyword Food, Children, Media
add
description “Make provision about the advertising, marketing and promotion of food and
drink
products to children; and for connected purposes.”
link
namespace “Food Products Marketing”
link
bill “Food Standards Act 1999”: “less healthy”
session 07-09
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”
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”
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
add
responsibility 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,
add
responsibility guidance UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: may, by regulations, issue guidance regarding the meaning
of “associated with” for the purposes of subsection (3)
add
subsection 7
add
responsibility consulation UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: FoodStandardsAgency
add
responsibility consulation UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: OfficeOfCommunications
add
responsibility consulation UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: AnyOrganisation
add
section “Duty of Food Standards Agency”
add
subsection 1
amend
“The Food Standards Act 1999”
modify
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
Add
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 Northern Ireland
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:
add responsibility consulation UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: FoodStandardsAgency : The function UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState is unknown
E0034:
add responsibility consulation UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: FoodStandardsAgency: The organisation UnitedKingdomGovernment
is unknown
E0034:
add responsibility consulation UnitedKingdomGovernment.SecretaryOfState: FoodStandardsAgency: The organisation FoodStandardsAgency
is unknown
E0034:
add responsibility 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
set
language english
include FoodSafety
add
definition “advertising and promotion” means “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;”
add
definition “brand” means “any name, logo, slogan or trademark associated with or owned by a food company;”
add
category “broadcast media” includes “scheduled and on-demand
broadcasts”
add
category “broadcast media” includes “radio services”
add
category “broadcast media” includes “terrestrial, satellite,
cable, pay or free television services broadcast within the United Kingdom;”
add
definition “children” means “any persons under the age of 16”
add
category “non-broadcast media” includes “print media, including mailings and posters”
add
category “non-broadcast media” includes “cinema and video”
add
category “non-broadcast media” includes “electronic media”
add
category “non-broadcast media” includes “correspondence”
add
category “electronic media” includes “online advertisements in paid-for space”
add
category “electronic media” includes “website”
add
category “correspondence” includes “brochures”
add
category “correspondence” includes “flyers”
add
category “non-broadcast media” includes “SMS text messages”
add
category “non-broadcast media” includes “packaging”
add
category “non-broadcast media” includes “point of sale displays”
add
category “non-broadcast media” includes “sponsorship”
add
category “sponsorship”includes “communications which refer to sponsorship”
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
in French: IrelandeDuNord
The return is
From: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
To: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
Subject:
create location NorthenIreland: OK
The system indicates that some organisation
is 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
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: root@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create virtual organisation FoodStandardsAgency
Text:
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: root@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
create virtual organisation 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 InformativeMotion 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:
InformativeMotion
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 voting again
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 finalizes. 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 have 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 suffers of a lack of memory.
On the contrary by being a based on confidentiality
and not on secret, electronic democracy has a memory. Electronic Democracy offers the possibility to remember your vote. The initiative or law that you supports or opposes, give some insights about your
interest and competence in the topic and so your political ability in the topic can be graded. Then, the grade is used to
sort all the members (and not only the candidate). And then, according to your grade, you can decide to be candidate or not.
In
doing so, it gave a motivation to take part in a debate. The debate is an opportunity to prove your interest and expertise
in order to position to succeed in a nomination. The principle of nomination is to offer each individual to set up rules in
order to give a grade to each member about the compatibility of their talent and the position.
For example, Nigel Griffiths believe that
the following grading rule can be used to apply to select the next director of the FoodStandardsAgency.
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
Vote +5 FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool
Julie Kirkbride follows other selective rules
and using – to signify that an opposition should add been manifested and not a support (+). In this case, a non manifestation
is not equal to an opposition but to a neutral position. The implication is that member who does not manifest themselves are
grade null to the selection process and so have no chance to be selected. It is a high incentive to manifest and shows yourself.
From:
JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
Vote
3 ParentControlProgrammingBox
Vote
-1 FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
The grading of the rule is weighted
in order to be sure that each member has an equal weight in the grading process. The total weight for Nigel is 25 and for
Julie is 3 + abs(-1) = 4. So, the two selection process will be merged into the merge selection rules which is:
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren -1/4
+ 10/25 = 0.15
ParentControlProgrammingBox ¾
= 0.75
FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999 10/25 =0.4
FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool
5/25 = 0.2
From this grading rule, a candidate who will have supported ParentControlProgrammingBox,
FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999, oppose FoodProductsMarketingToChildren, not manifest FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool, will get a grade of:
0.15 * -1 + 0.75 * 1 + .4 * 1 =
1
Another candidate supports only
FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999 and gets a grade 0.4.
The merge selection rules will
be displayed, and update according to the political process. The judgments concerning initiatives can change and so some rules
can be inversed with the time. The change will be however continuous and so the system should highly motivate members to participate
to the voting.
Then, the organization can consider
that the five best grade candidates will be authorized to do a political campaign for the position. The system has the advantage
to get rid of the lack of transparent in the pre selection process of current political party.
Exclusion rule on the base of abusive debating
argument
The preceding House Of Commons debate has been a polite debate. Opposition manifests
itself democratically. You can however suppose that opposition manifests itself on the form of accusation. For example, one
of the accusation type are: Lie, PoliticalSynonym(*), Misunformation, Manipulation,
Demagogy
For example, Nigel Griffiths could mark his opposition to Martin Horwoord by an
accusation.
From: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: accuse Misunformation FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2.-MartinHorwood1
Text:
Add message “The hon. Member is advocating putting the health of American television before the health of British
children. His hyperbole, as a journalist, does him no credit, because the truth is that prior to the restrictions—they
were rather small, and came in only in summer last year—all the evidence showed that tens of millions of pounds’
worth of children’s programming was no longer being commissioned in Britain, and that was the case before a single bit
of legislation had been put in place. Small and welcome steps have been taken so far and they are being evaluated in full
by Ofcom. However, Ofcom’s evidence indicates that less than half of the programmes watched by young children are affected
by the restrictions, which is why they are not very effective.”
In this case, every support to Nigel Griffiths point will be considered to be also
a support to the accusation. An opposition will be considered to be an opposition to the accusation. Then, it will be possible
to block Martin Horwood of an election to a nomination by adding a filter rule like
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
Vote +5 FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool
Exclude Misinformation 0.02 Last5Years
Exclude Accusation 0.05 Last5Years
The rule means that if we divide the number accusation on grant of misinformation
by the total of manifestation. It will be exclude of the selection process if misinformation accusation forms more than 2
% of the manifestation. Accusation is a general term gathering all kind of accusation.
Martin Horwood can protect him from the accusation by a retraction on the form:
From: MartinHorrwood@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Retract FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2.-MartinHorwood1
In this case, the point FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2.-MartinHorwood1
is removed and so it can not be use for an accusation.
(*) See Key Concepts: Hierarchisation of the law framework
Categorisation of debaters
Class presupposition
Another way to force individual to retract or amend their position during a debating
process, can be achieved by the categorization of the debater. Any number of categorizations can be created and can be for
example: StoicPhilosopher, Capitalist, Racist, IslamistFundamentalist, SupporterOfLegalizeRoberry, MacDonaldLobbyist, ExpertEconomist,
Spammer, SubmiterOfResolutionWithDoublePurpose(1) etc…
For example,
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject:
Create PersonalCategory MacDonaldLobbyist
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Accuse MacDonaldLobbyist FoodProductsMarketingToChildren. -NigelEvans2
Text:
Add message
“When the hon. Member previously intervened, I asked him whether he would put the health of the advertising industry
before the health of our children; sadly, he has answered that question.”
If it is an opposition, the term accuse will be use
if it is a title, the term Grant will be use. For example, Nigel Evans can revendicate himself the title MacDonaldLobbyist
From:
NigelEvans@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Revendicate MacDonaldLobbyist FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.
-NigelEvans2
Text:
Then, the selection rule can be upgraded by:
From:
NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
Vote +5 FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool
Exclude Misinformation 0.02 Last5Years
Exclude Accusation 0.05 Last5Years
Exclude MacDonaldLobbyist 0.01 Last5Years
But, Nigel Evans
might have a different view and include the rule:
From:
NigelEvans@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
IncludeOnly MacDonaldLobbyist 0.01 Last5Years
Which means that only individual consider like MacDonaldLobbyist in 1 % of the
intervention can apply for the job.
(1) See resolution with two issues
Principle holder
Debater can characterize themselves
in order to improve their chance to a nomination by revendicating principle. Principle creator can consider that this principle
is a subclass of another principle and oppose to another principle. They can be accused from other debater to not follow those
principles.
From:
NigelEvans@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create Principle MarketingRightInRelationToMoneyHold
Text
MarketingRightInRelationToMoneyHold
ChildOf FreedomOfExpression
Add description
“Money is a valid and single discriminator to decide who is allowed to market and who is not allow”
Then, a principle can be opposed or supported in order to be use
for a nomination.
From:
NigelEvans@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Oppose Principle MarketingRightInRelationToMoneyHold
FAQ
Is www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk anti democratic because many people do not know how to use a computer?
The process of delegation can be done
through post mail of a delegation document without any computer. The delegate could enter himself that he has the default
delegation right of a citizen which does not desire to use www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk. He will just need to show and record signed form that it has the right to increase his
voting right by delegation for a limited time from an identified citizen. In this matter, delegation will always be far more
democratic than parliamentary representation. The process develops inside political party to select representative has several
drawbacks. Firstly, it is largely unknown to the profane. It is more related
to the communicative skills than in the competence of the topics to debate. It is dependant to hidden relational network close
to most of us.
It should also be differentiated a
limitation due to human decision to a limitation due to the reality (the name that atheist gives to god). The restriction
to the number of MP to 764 is a human rule and so it is not democratic.
Does
the support writing a necessity in the law and politics?
Not really. Even today in India, many
tribes reject the writing law to protect their oral tradition. One argument is that the oral law is established in a more
democratic way than the imposed writing law. Another issue is that oral law should be learnt. And so, the human brain automatically
get rid of legal incoherence by initiating a debate oral law has to be structured in our brain in a coherent to stay in order.
Two thousands years ago, celtic druid gave the same issue to oppose the writing of their custom. But, as one can understand
by reading the bible, the writing law got a fundamental problem. How can so many laws not contradict themselves at some point? The contradictions are opportunities for the upper class to abuse by exploiting the
contradiction of the laws.
As I explain in my book, “The
day when politician will debate about our genes”, electronic law gathers the benefit of the both world of the oral law
and writing law. Like in the oral law, everybody has an equal possibility to change the law. Like in the writing law, the
law is transmitted to one generation to another and so the civilization can progress according to the law system. The constitutional
law is the genome of human civilization. If the legal structure cannot evolve, civilization cannot either. The Islamic world
with one of the most rigid law the humankind ever had paid a severe economical price to this extreme rigidity.
Expert in Artificial Intelligence programming
knows that rule programming offers the possibility to detect the contradiction of the rule to guarantee the legality of new
laws.
If
too many people take place in a debate, might it be easy to block the process and make www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk completely inefficient to converge to a solution?
www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk is not based on a vote after the debate but on the progressive manifestation
of support and opposition. This is a natural way that political movement and religion develops and so it is more natural than
“voting”. Most Issue might be classed not optional so in some case. The promoter and the supporter will enforce
the issue if to do nothing might appear too risky.
Is
an electronic democracy a tyranny of the majority? In this case, the redistribution practiced as legalized robbery will become
the rule of the game.
www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk is about
voting law and not about budget and tax. The law is equal for all. Fundamentally, the law forbids doing and is not supposed
to become a duty. To have somebody engage to do something, an agreement should be established. Totalitarian believes that
they can oblige individuals to do by law. Without the establishment of “punishment”, you cannot oblige to work
and cannot oblige them to pay tax. If they don’t agree, they will stop working, studying, retiring or work abroad. The
easiest way to practice tax avoidance is to refuse to be productive to refuse to pay taxes. So, www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
differentiates law to action. Action needs an agreement in proportion to the engagement. And so, the voting rights are weighted
by the amount of property invested.
How
can electronic democracy guarantee the secret of our opinion?
The secrecy of vote is a danger to
uncorrupt politics. In fact, most corruption appears under the cover of secrecy. Concerning voting, you can never be sure
that no fraud occurs. You can only have the faith that everything is regular.
In the ancient time, politics and opinion
were forced out by the argument of magical power. In our modern time in India,
many people are suspicious about voting in the ballot box because they know magicians who have the power to increase ballots
by magical power. Politicians are selling us that the secret voting process is safe. Of course, they cannot be safe! When you have secrecy, you always got a clever guy who finds a way to trick the system.
Look to the levitation magic trick of David Copperfield! You cannot find the trick. Does it mean that there is no trick? What
is the relation between I cannot find the fraud and there is no trick. In the current democratic process, you cannot find
any trick. But, is it a proof that there is no fraud? There is no relation. Professional political (magicians) know how to
fraud in a way that you do not know. In politics, secrecy is dangerous, because
rogues promote secrecy. Only confidentially of the vote could guarantee the absence of fraud. Confidentially means that the
access of the system is limited to elected number of controllers who will access to the information in the system and call
to the debater to check their identity and see if the content in the database of not my changes. As it might be always possible
to attack the result by an inquiry, all frauds will end up to be found out. In the current voting system of secrecy, frauds
are supposed to not exist because secrecy hides them. A more serious related issue is the problem of the personal interest
in the result of “voting”. Most deliberative assemblies forbid interest
party to vote for a project in which voter might get a direct enrichment from the projects. For example, a member of an administrative
board of the “Ville de Paris” cannot vote for the attribution of a construction project to the company Bouygues
if he is a shareholder of this company. This principle could be extended to large assembly of the size of a country to reduce
the risk of personal enrichment of interest group by diverting taxation toward them. The application of laws against political
activity towards personal enrichment is not compatible with the idea of secrecy.
Another case against secrecy is the
right to condition your vote to some achievement. If your vote is secret, you cannot condition it to a result because you
cannot prove that you really vote for this person. In Electronic Democracy, you can offer condition vote contract instead
of simple vote. If this is done or verified true, you have my vote.
The last case against the secrecy of
the vote is the problem of the voting contract. Voting should be a “legal contract” but it is not because the
elector is not known, and the contract supposes that all party should be known. A contract means that the elector can add
condition to the mandate and exercise a pressure that “breaking” the contract and stopping the mandate follows
those conditions.
Is electronic democracy a risk for the social peace and
the national unity?
The society evolves in the political
confrontation between different views. As every new political concept, electronic democracy divides the society into two camps.
Electronic Democracy divides into two camps: the political class and the productive class. In the productive class, I include
workers, salary men, and competitive business normal. In the political class, I include politician, journalist, technocrat,
high rank civil servant, syndicalism and politico-capitalist. I include in politico-capitalist, businessmen who got their
position more due to their political relation than their competitive sense of business. Bernard Tapie is one of them.
The economic risk is however very low
in a sense that it does not strengthen the unity of the private sector. Historically, political opposition, which had gathered
the private sector against the 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 move to electronic democracy law creation assembly?
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 political power to the expense to the productive
private sector beyond 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 so-called Marxism, inspired politics. The book wrote by a self-proclaimed economist who had no experience
of the financial world and real decision process of the Capitalist world. These incomplete views of political economy, praise
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 now 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. As 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 proven otherwise. 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. Proved 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.