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 to vote according to the motion. The number of self-interest will be decreased by the usage of delegate and
agreement of self-interest.
What would really take place in Electronic
Democracy?
Electronic
democracy is about resolving all issues of convergence and so a perfect electronic democratic system supposes that there is
no parallel dealing of convergence.
The issue and resolution couple
The previous
chapter was to translate a House of Commons debate into a real electronic debate. The first action is to consider that political
message is based on the couple issue and resolution. So, the first action is to log issues and propose resolutions and to
try to group resolutions around one issue. Then, the every player will comment his resolution according to others resolutions.
The first action
is to class resolution in two categories informative or effective. Informative resolution has the purpose to learn more about
the issue before taking an effective resolution. Then, the each debater will offer a classication of resolution according
to:
§ Cost,
§ Effectiveness
§ Flexibility,
§ BetterRiskManagement,
In the preceding
example, we can consider four effectives resolutions
Nigel Griffifts
defends the bill 07-08 19 forbidding all advertising about less healthy food for children,
Food Standards Act 1999 concerns only advertising
during children program,
Brian Iddon wants
free meal to be given at School,
Julie Kirkbride
wants to increase parent responsibility. Let’s suppose that she militates for parent control programming box that offers
parents the possibility to filter advertising. If their children are not on the way to fatness, there are no points to censure
advertising. But, if children are getting fat, they can to select a filter and to block the advertisement.
From: JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: support resolution ParentControlProgrammingBox
Text:
Prefer ParentControlProgrammingBox Over FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
on Flexibility, Effectiveness
Prefer ParentControlProgrammingBox Over FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
on Flexibility, Effectiveness
Prefer ParentControlProgrammingBox Over FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool on Flexibility, Cost
It is
also to support several resolutions that you consider incompatible between them, which means that only one resolution
can be executed, not both.
From: BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: support resolution Over FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool, FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Text:
MutuallyExclusive FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool, FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool Over FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
on Flexibility, Effectiveness
FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool Over FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
on Flexibility, Effectiveness
Bringing interest to your issue
Individual contract of interest
The command
list debated issue
delivered issue classified by the number of participant to the resolution. With this
command, members can concentrate their interest towards issue who are on the point to have a resolution voted. Other command
likes
list issue -k{keyword} issue -sdebated
offers a ranking of issue filtered by a keyword
-s is for status
The largest part of political activity
is to get interest from other debaters to our issue.
The first mechanism is to create a transaction
in the way: I support your resolution if you support my resolution
You agree for a join support. The idea
of a contract of interest is to agree to take position (support or opposition) once in a specific period with the issue creates
by another participant in exchange from him to take position in one of your issue. By increasing the number of contract of
interest, you increase the ranking of your issue and resolution and so the chance to have something finalized. Contract on
interest are on issue, not on resolution. You have the right to select any resolution or to create new one according to the
issue.
From: BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: JulieKirkbride@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Propose ContractOfInterest weekly
In this
case, Brian Iddon proposes to Julie to establish a weekly contract of interest with Julie. Julie will answer by:
From: JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk To: BrianIddon@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Accept ContractOfInterest weekly
Then,
From: BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: JulieKirkbride@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Move ChildObesity
In taking
position, Julie will get a credit of 1 interest that she can use at any time to force Brian to take position on one of her
issue. Brian will have an –1 interest debit that will be paid back if he takes position on a issue marketed by Julie.
Collective contract of interest
A similar
mechanism is to register for collective interest.
From: BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Engage ContractOfInterest montlhy
Text:
Number 5
In doing so, you engage yourself to take
position five time a month about issues proposed randomly monthly from other members. In return, you get credit. The
credit will be paid to propose your issue to other members.
From: BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Move ChildObesity
Text:
Spend 5
Five of your credits will be spent to increase
the interest on ChildObesity issue. You can spend more credit than you have. If so, you will have an interest debt.
It is also possible to orientate stochastically
by adding preferential keyword:
From: BrianIddon@parliament.uk To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Update ContractOfInterest montlhy
Text:
Keyword Obesity 10
Keyword Drug 5
It does not means that Obesity will be
the only subject presents but it will be shown with a high priority 10. Point relative to the drug keyword will be shown in
a lower priority.
Keyword ranking
The issue will be ranked by keyword. If you create
an issue, you can associate it to any number of keyword but if you select more than one keyword. A weight will be applied
to each keyword and so the ranking will be decreased. For example,
From: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: update issue ChildObesity
Text:
Keyword Child 5
Keyword Obesity 10
ChildObesity issue will have a ranking weight of 5/15
on Child and 10/15 on obesity. If ChildObesity has a manifestation of 113, his total ranking grade on key word Child will
be 113/ {Number of member} * 5/15
This grade will be used to sort issue on the use of
the command
list issue -kChild issue -sdebated
How to be select democratically capable candidate to responsible position?
In present day
assembly, debaters can manifest simply by voting. Which is simple and guarantee a large participation? But, it has the inconvenience
that there are very little insensitive to build up an intelligent decision. You
can even vote at random. Who will check? What will you lose? Even, the things are worst when you have to vote for persons
from who you know virtually nothing. You never see their curriculum vitae, and have to rely on the images create by their
journalist friends. The current television oriented democracy is limited by a lack of memory.
On the contrary
by being based on confidentiality and not on secret, electronic democracy has a memory. Electronic Democracy
offers the possibility to remember your vote. The initiative or law that you
supports or opposes, give some insights about your interest and competence in the topic and so your political ability in the
topic can be graded. Then, the grade is used to sort all the members (and not only the candidate). And then, according to
your grade, you can decide to be candidate or not.
In doing so, it gave a motivation to take part in a debate. The debate is an opportunity to prove your interest
and expertise in order to position to succeed in a nomination. The principle of nomination is to offer each individual to
set up rules in order to give a grade to each member about the compatibility of their talent and the position.
For example,
Nigel Griffiths believe that the following grading rule can be used to apply to select the next director of the FoodStandardsAgency.
From: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
Vote +5 FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool
Julie Kirkbride
follows other selective rules and using – to signify that an opposition should add been manifested and not a support
(+). In this case, a non-manifestation is not equal to an opposition but to a neutral position. The implication is that member
who does not manifest themselves are grade null to the selection process and so have no chance to be selected. It is a high
incentive to manifest and shows yourself.
From: JulieKirkbride@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
Vote 3 ParentControlProgrammingBox
Vote -1 FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
The grading
of the rule is weighted in order to be sure that each member has an equal weight in the grading process. The total weight
for Nigel is 25 and for Julie is 3 + abs(-1) = 4. So, the two selection process will be merged into the merge selection
rules which is:
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren -1/4 + 10/25 = 0.15
ParentControlProgrammingBox ¾ = 0.75
FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999 10/25 =0.4
FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool 5/25 = 0.2
From this grading rule, a candidate who will have supported ParentControlProgrammingBox,
FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999, oppose FoodProductsMarketingToChildren, not manifest FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool, will get a grade of:
0.15
* -1 + 0.75 * 1 + .4 * 1 = 1
Another
candidate supports only FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999 and gets a grade 0.4.
The
merge selection rules will be displayed, and update according to the political process. The judgments concerning initiatives,
can change and so some rules can be inversed with the time. The change will be however continuous and so the system should
highly motivate members to participate to the voting.
Then,
the organization can consider that the five best grade candidates will be authorized to do a political campaign for the position.
The system has the advantage to get rid of the lack of transparent in the pre selection process of current political party.
Exclusion rule
on the base of abusive debating argument
The preceding House Of Commons debate has been a polite
debate. Opposition manifests itself democratically. You can however suppose that opposition manifests itself on the form of
accusation. For example, one of the accusation type are: Lie, PoliticalSynonym(*), Misunformation, Manipulation, Demagogy
For example, Nigel Griffiths could mark his opposition
to Martin Horwoord by an accusation.
From: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: accuse Misunformation FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2.-MartinHorwood1
Text:
Add message “The hon. Member is advocating putting the health of American television
before the health of British children. His hyperbole, as a journalist, does him no credit, because the truth is that prior
to the restrictions—they were rather small, and came in only in summer last year—all the evidence showed that
tens of millions of pounds’ worth of children’s programming was no longer being commissioned in Britain, and that
was the case before a single bit of legislation had been put in place. Small and welcome steps have been taken so far and
they are being evaluated in full by Ofcom. However, Ofcom’s evidence indicates that less than half of the programmes
watched by young children are affected by the restrictions, which is why they are not very effective.”
In this case, every support to Nigel Griffiths point
will be considered to be also a support to the accusation. An opposition will be considered to be an opposition to the accusation.
Then, it will be possible to block Martin Horwood of an election to a nomination by adding a filter rule like
From: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
Vote +5 FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool
Exclude Misinformation 0.02 Last5Years
Exclude Accusation
0.05 Last5Years
The rule means that if we divide the number accusation
on grant of misinformation by the total of manifestation. It will be exclude of the selection process if misinformation accusation
forms more than 2 % of the manifestation. Accusation is a general term gathering all kind of accusation.
Martin Horwood can protect him from the accusation
by a retraction on the form:
From: MartinHorrwood@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Retract
FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2.-MartinHorwood1
In this case, the point FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.-NigelEvans2.-MartinHorwood1
is removed and so it can not be use for an accusation.
(*) See Key Concepts: Hierarchisation of the law framework
Categorisation
of debaters
Class presupposition
Another way to force individual to retract or amend
their position during a debating process, can be achieved by the categorization of the debater. Any number of categorizations
can be created and can be for example: StoicPhilosopher, Capitalist, Racist, IslamistFundamentalist, SupporterOfLegalizeRoberry,
MacDonaldLobbyist, ExpertEconomist, Spammer, SubmiterOfResolutionWithDoublePurpose(1) etc…
For example,
From: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create PersonalCategory MacDonaldLobbyist
From: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Accuse MacDonaldLobbyist FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.
-NigelEvans2
Text:
Add message “When the hon. Member previously intervened, I asked him whether he would put the health of
the advertising industry before the health of our children; sadly, he has answered that question.”
If it is an opposition,
the term accuse will be use if it is a title, the term Grant will be use. For example, Nigel Evans can revendicate himself
the title MacDonaldLobbyist
From: NigelEvans@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Revendicate MacDonaldLobbyist FoodProductsMarketingToChildren.
-NigelEvans2
Text:
Then, the selection rule
can be upgraded by:
From: NigelGriffiths@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildren
Vote +10 FoodProductsMarketingToChildrenAct1999
Vote +5 FreeMealToChildrenAtSchool
Exclude Misinformation 0.02 Last5Years
Exclude Accusation 0.05
Last5Years
Exclude MacDonaldLobbyist 0.01 Last5Years
But, Nigel Evans might have a different view and include the rule:
From: NigelEvans@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create selection FoodStandardsAgency.Director
Text:
IncludeOnly MacDonaldLobbyist 0.01 Last5Years
Which means that only individual consider like MacDonaldLobbyist
in 1 % of the intervention can apply for the job.
(1) See resolution with two issues
Principle holder
Debater
can characterize themselves in order to improve their chance to a nomination by revendicating principle. Principle creator
can consider that this principle is a subclass of another principle and oppose to another principle. They can be accused from
other debater to not follow those principles.
From: NigelEvans@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Create Principle MarketingRightInRelationToMoneyHold
Text
MarketingRightInRelationToMoneyHold ChildOf FreedomOfExpression
Add description “Money is a valid and single discriminator to decide who is allowed to market and who is
not allow”
Then, a principle can be opposed
or supported in order to be use for a nomination.
From: NigelEvans@parliament.uk
To: HouseOfCommons@electronicdemocracy.co.uk
Subject: Oppose Principle MarketingRightInRelationToMoneyHold
FAQ
Is
www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk anti democratic because many people do not know how to use
a computer?
The process
of delegation can be done through post mail of a delegation document without any computer. The delegate could enter himself
that he has the default delegation right of a citizen which does not desire to use www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk. He will just need to show and record signed form that it has the right to increase his
voting right by delegation for a limited time from an identified citizen. In this matter, delegation will always be far more
democratic than parliamentary representation. The process develops inside political party to select representative has several
drawbacks. Firstly, it is largely unknown to the profane. It is more related
to the communicative skills than in the competence of the topics to debate. It is dependant to hidden relational network close
to most of us.
It should
also be differentiated a limitation due to human decision to a limitation due to the reality (the name that atheist gives
to god). The restriction to the number of MP to 764 is a human rule and so it is not democratic.
Does the support writing a necessity in the law and politics?
Not really.
Even today in India, many tribes reject the writing law to protect their oral tradition. One argument is that the oral law
is established in a more democratic way than the imposed writing law. Another issue is that oral law should be learnt. And
so, the human brain automatically get rid of legal incoherence by initiating a debate oral law has to be structured in our
brain in a coherent to stay in order. Two thousands years ago, celtic druid gave the same issue to oppose the writing of their
custom. But, as one can understand by reading the bible, the writing law got a fundamental problem. How can so many laws not
contradict themselves at some point? The contradictions are opportunities for
the upper class to abuse by exploiting the contradiction of the laws.
As I explain
in my book, “The day when politician will debate about our genes”, electronic law gathers the benefit of the both
world of the oral law and writing law. Like in the oral law, everybody has an equal possibility to change the law. Like in
the writing law, the law is transmitted to one generation to another and so the civilization can progress according to the
law system. The constitutional law is the genome of human civilization. If the legal structure cannot evolve, civilization
cannot either. The Islamic world with one of the most rigid law the humankind ever had paid a severe economical price to this
extreme rigidity.
Expert
in Artificial Intelligence programming knows that rule programming offers the possibility to detect the contradiction of the
rule to guarantee the legality of new laws.
If too many people take place in a debate, might it be easy to block the process and make www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk completely inefficient to converge
to a solution?
www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk is not based on a vote after the debate but on
the progressive manifestation of support and opposition. This is a natural way that political movement and religion develops
and so it is more natural than “voting”. Most Issue might be classed not optional so in some case. The promoter
and the supporter will enforce the issue if to do nothing might appear too risky.
Is an electronic democracy a tyranny of the majority? In this case, the redistribution practiced as
legalized robbery will become the rule of the game.
www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
is about voting law and not about budget and tax. The law is equal for all. Fundamentally, the law forbids doing and is not
supposed to become a duty. To have somebody engage to do something, an agreement should be established. Totalitarian believes
that they can oblige individuals to do by law. Without the establishment of “punishment”, you cannot oblige to
work and cannot oblige them to pay tax. If they don’t agree, they will stop working, studying, retiring or work abroad.
The easiest way to practice tax avoidance is to refuse to be productive to refuse to pay taxes. So, www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk
differentiates law to action. Action needs an agreement in proportion to the engagement. And so, the voting rights are weighted
by the amount of property invested.
How can electronic democracy guarantee the secret of our opinion?
The secrecy
of vote is a danger to uncorrupt politics. In fact, most corruption appears under the cover of secrecy. Concerning voting,
you can never be sure that no fraud occurs. You can only have the faith that everything is regular.
In the
ancient time, politics and opinion were forced out by the argument of magical power.
In our modern time in India, many people are suspicious about voting in the ballot box because they know magicians
who have the power to increase ballots by magical power. Politicians are selling us that the secret voting process is safe.
Of course, they cannot be safe! When you have secrecy, you always got a clever
guy who finds a way to trick the system. Look to the levitation magic trick of David Copperfield! You cannot find the trick.
Does it mean that there is no trick? What is the relation between I cannot find the fraud and there is no trick. In the current
democratic process, you cannot find any trick. But, is it a proof that there is no fraud? There is no relation. Professional
political (magicians) know how to fraud in a way that you do not know. In politics,
secrecy is dangerous, because rogues promote secrecy. Only confidentially of the vote could guarantee the absence of fraud.
Confidentially means that the access of the system is limited to elected number of controllers who will access to the information
in the system and call to the debater to check their identity and see if the content in the database of not my changes. As
it might be always possible to attack the result by an inquiry, all frauds will end up to be found out. In the current voting
system of secrecy, frauds are supposed to not exist because secrecy hides them. A more serious related issue is the problem
of the personal interest in the result of “voting”. Most deliberative
assemblies forbid interest party to vote for a project in which voter might get a direct enrichment from the projects. For
example, a member of an administrative board of the “Ville de Paris” cannot vote for the attribution of a construction
project to the company Bouygues if he is a shareholder of this company. This principle could be extended to large assembly
of the size of a country to reduce the risk of personal enrichment of interest group by diverting taxation toward them. The
application of laws against political activity towards personal enrichment is not compatible with the idea of secrecy.
Another
case against secrecy is the right to condition your vote to some achievement. If your vote is secret, you cannot condition
it to a result because you cannot prove that you really vote for this person. In Electronic Democracy, you can offer condition
vote contract instead of simple vote. If this is done or verified true, you have my vote.
The last
case against the secrecy of the vote is the problem of the voting contract. Voting should be a “legal contract”
but it is not because the elector is not known, and the contract supposes that all party should be known. A contract means
that the elector can add condition to the mandate and exercise a pressure that “breaking” the contract and stopping
the mandate follows those conditions.
Is electronic democracy a risk
for the social peace and the national unity?
The society
evolves in the political confrontation between different views. As every new political concept, electronic democracy divides
the society into two camps. Electronic Democracy divides into two camps: the political class and the productive class. In
the productive class, I include workers, salary men, and competitive business normal. In the political class, I include politician,
journalist, technocrat, high rank civil servant, syndicalism and politico-capitalist. I include in politico-capitalist, businessmen
who got their position more due to their political relation than their competitive sense of business. Bernard Tapie is one
of them.
The economic
risk is however very low in a sense that it does not strengthen the unity of the private sector. Historically, political opposition,
which had gathered the private sector against tax collectors, always follows by several century of economical prosperity (English
Peasant revolution 1381, Protestant Peasant War 1524, American Revolution 1776, and French revolution 1789). The opposite
is true. Most of the civilization that fails to achieve this revolution, economically collapse and move towards strengthens
of the political class by the so-called Marxist revolution (Russia, China, Viet Nam).
What are the reasons for a society to create electronic parliament?
Since
the creation of an elective monarchy (the fifth republic) in 1958 by the General De Gaulle, and on behalf of the new technology,
computerized indirect taxation and centralized media power, the political class has succeed to increase his real concrete
political power to the expense to the productive private sector beyond any historical record.
The first
reason has been the complete ignorance of the economical mechanism from the debater of the political world and major mistakes
on the part of politician. Some of them are the Marxism, inspired politics. The book wrote by an auto proclaimed political
economist, who had no experience of the financial world and real decision process of the Capitalist world. These incomplete
views of political economy, praises by politicians lead to the creation of disastrous politics like the communist state or
the welfare state, the full cost of the latter is yet to come.
The second
reason has been the division of the society into two groups: tax paying societies and tax living societies. The development
of computerization had increased considerably the power of the latest class. Now, taxation is mainly hidden and undirected
and so the main part of the tax paying is unaware of its extent to the points that politician succeeds to make them believe
that they also belong to the group of the tax living class. Those privilegious are mainly forward far away in future (like
welfare pension and health care) with a very little chance to be granted if the financial community decides to restrain the
financial credit of the state. The lack of political abilities of the productive class had leaded to the development
of a sub class of the political class: the media, which included journalists, social professional. The purpose of this sub
class has been to gauge or eventually to increase the level of awareness of the productive class in order to facilitate the
level of leniently towards the huge taxation system.
The third
reason has been ever increasing debts against future generation. The future generation cannot be a political actor. Their
interest is never ever scarified to the benefit of present political forces. This last point is also related to the lack of
interest of the productive class to politics. Considering that people are interested to learn if they can use this knowledge
to improve their life or the one of the future generation. Members of the productive class had virtually no chance to access
any real executive political position in the state apparatus. Most of those positions are now hold by state professionals.
The fourth
reason has been the creation of various statuses, which are not other than privilegious or opportunity to benefit of corruption.
And due, law of evolution of the society and the second principle of Entropy, candidate become more and more excite by corruption
opportunities than by personal achievement towards the nation. One of them is the not so useful concept of syndicate, which
sell themselves of protector of the workers but is in fact more in the business to find fraud opportunities to divert the
payment of the pension system toward their own banking account.
Can we use unscientific political speculation based on philosophical beliefs?
Present
day politician use the argument of lack of scientific evidence to prevent to block speculative debate based on contrarians
views. This is completely anti democratic. All speculations are valid except otherwise proven. Scientific evidence should
be brought to oppose the speculation. And not, the speculation is refutated because nobody finds a scientific way to prove
it. After having stressed this point, I consider there are more to learn in the politico-religious fight between roman pagans,
the father of church and Christian heretics of the Roman Empire to study about large political debate and the convergence
of a large number of people than from the modern political science. The politics is about taking decisions. And, we never
had enough evidence to really scientifically prove the decision. So, the argument of science is just to prevent debating and
stop the democracy. The church is however informative in an example of speculative debate. The Church bases his debate on
scripture. In www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk, the experimental science will be
used as a “bible” in order to obtain evidence against false speculation. Politics are before all about taking
the right decision and just secondary about having everybody taking part. Proven false speculation should be removed of the
debate on the face of “scientific” or experimental evidence.
How to avoid the political supremacy of a few over others?
Individuals
have different issues and revendications. Each of us has some political revendication, which are of no priority interest to
others. In politics, individuals want to be listened and usually have no interest to listen others. Two thousands years ago
in Israel, a great political campaigner did not hesitate to display magic power, claiming to talk of the name of God, to succeed
to have his political claim accepted by a large audience. Nowadays, real political practices are not more democratic equity
sharing of time and talk ratio. A good relation with the television makes you exist in politics… And so, journalists
and politicians maintain good relation to support mutually their career. This fraternization between politician and journalist
create the condition of an orientation of information toward personal interest.
Currently,
Internet is used in two modes:
§
web site and the diffusion mode,
§
email in order to exchange between two
individuals.
Both modes
are inadequate to use Internet toward a democratic approach of politics. Internet offers the possibility to do politics really
democratically.
But, who have the right to bring his revendication
in front of the political agenda? The King, the president, TV news journalist, Carl Zero, the pope, the richest man of the
world or all of us in an equal selection process on revendication… The only way is to have an account of others revendications.
You read it according to the accounting of your readings. www.electronicdemocracy.co.uk will propose your revendication for
reading randomly to any reader according to the total of other people revendication , you had previously read.
In order to
increase the chances to reach individuals interested by your revendication, you classify it in a directory or add key word.
The fact to add keywords will not change the number of individuals reading your political revendication. The number of readers
will be strictly according to the number of revendication you read. For each revendication you had read, you could reject
it because the cause does not filled according to your moral rule.
