[LINK] E-Democracy

[Stephen Loosley]

At 11:12 PM 28/11/2006, Jan wrote:

>At 09:48 PM 28/11/2006, Stephen wrote:
>>I say again, e-democracy does NOT need to be rocket science. And I say, just like the Victorian government and e-voting .. hey, give it a go .. and then, if it needs refining .. well, ok .. so what .. few systems are perfect when initially introduced. And a private, easy and economical way to assist our governments in the making of better laws is certainly worth trying, even if experience then indicates that changes may make it better.
>
>There's nothing to stop anyone from using Yahoo Groups to have these sorts of discussions. The trick would be to get the info from Parliament and keep on top of it. It's a BIG job!

Very true, Jan .. and you are right to suggest Yahoo groups etc could very easily facilitate political discussion .. but, it's way beyond what I'm suggesting.

My whole point is that if governments really believe they represent the public, then they will be seeking ways to ascertain exactly what we the public thinks. 

And despite the current and quite difficult 'non-electronic' parliamentry-petition process (un-changed since the Magna Carta) we know that some of the current custodians of our government systems (ie the sitting members) would indeed very much like to focus on what we pay them for .. and that is to churn-out and pass workable written legislation (rather than be media celebrities) and to focus on issues rather than personalities and party politics (sigh).

To do this, in an increasingly complex world, they need expert, timely input. The sort of input that some Linkers, for example, can and do easily provide.

But, they don't really want to create a lot of public discussion, and are unlikely to create resources to facilitate this. For example, what if everyone agrees on proposed legislation, but they do not?  It would then be difficult for them to pass legislation, that they have resourced and that much of the public agree with, after much lengthy and public e-discussion. For example, do you think Australia would ever go to war, if it were to be decided by public discussion? 

No. But, what they are likely to agree to is a quick, easy and most of all a *private* (ie, no public discussion, just one-to-one email) public-response e-resource.  And, that's what I'm suggesting. If all proposed bills were down-loadable from the one place, and included quick and easy public-response resources, (eg form-pages) then sure, some emails would be junk/rants, but many would be right on the money. And helpful and useful, yet very easy for the public to provide for them.  

So, do you see the difference? Sure, there would be no need for them to follow the public advice given, but they would be fools to ignore serious input from the public. And, a simple acknowledgement of input-receipt should be sufficient from the public's perspective. That's all I'm suggesting. No public voting, nor long public-discussions which would be difficult for the current custodians of Canberra's seats to ignore, and hence, un-likely to be created.

I agree, Tom's and your ideas for public discussion of proposed legislation would perhaps be ideal, but, it's too early for that. Lets get them used to the idea of public e-input first .. if you like we can then try for actual *discussion* on issues, rather than simple *comment* on proposed Australian/State gov legislation, which is all I'm suggesting.

It's not rocket science .. just an easy, simple and cheap way for Govs to say to we citizens, "here's what we propose, please send in your comments".

Cheers, Jan
Stephen Loosley
Victoria, Australia