On the whole my coun­try, the United King­dom, does Democ­racy pretty well. One only has to look at numer­ous exam­ples around the globe to know how bad some of the alter­na­tives can be. I just can’t help feel that the entire sys­tem is inef­fi­cient. We vote by con­stituency, which is fine for me as a tra­di­tion­ally Lib Dem voter in a con­stituency that swings about evenly between Lib Dem and Con­ser­v­a­tive. But what about the Labour voter here, who has pretty much no chance of suc­cess­fully elect­ing his candidate?

I’m not just argu­ing in favour of Pro­por­tional Rep­re­sen­ta­tion, though. The MPs that we elect rep­re­sent us, at least in the­ory. But how well do they, or even can they? Each con­stituency has peo­ple with so many wide-ranging opin­ions that one man or woman can’t hope to rep­re­sent all of them. And then how well does an MP in gov­ern­ment rep­re­sent their con­stituents com­pared to an MP in oppo­si­tion? Doesn’t the Whip sys­tem and the con­cept of “toe­ing the party line” blur the line between us being rep­re­sented by an MP and us being rep­re­sented by that MP’s party? And if we’re being rep­re­sented by such a huge unwieldy thing as a party, how can we ever hope to agree with every­thing a party believes in?

What I pro­pose is an open and trans­par­ent imple­men­ta­tion of the extreme of direct democ­racy — a weak­en­ing of the pow­ers of MPs to vote on our behalf, and a rad­i­cal expan­sion of the power of pub­lic ref­er­en­dum. I also pro­pose that the gov­ern­ment, be it in the form of MPs or merely a body of civil ser­vants, have the fol­low­ing core functions:

Main­tain an open and fair sys­tem of stag­ing ref­er­en­dums. Ref­er­en­dums, in which mem­bers of the pub­lic vote directly on national pol­icy, must be fair and free from cor­rup­tion. Infra­struc­ture must be in place to allow them to hap­pen reg­u­larly. Ref­er­en­dums should take place over media such as the Inter­net only if they can be inde­pen­dently proven to be unrigged, and so long as other means are also pro­vided so that no-one is left out. Results of the votes much be pub­lished accu­rately and in a timely man­ner using an open for­mat and an open licence. There must be trace­abil­ity between a ref­er­en­dum and the pol­icy change it causes.

Pro­vide an unbi­ased source of infor­ma­tion. If the pub­lic are expected to vote directly on mat­ters of pol­icy, they must have the infor­ma­tion to make an informed deci­sion. Raw facts and unbi­ased analy­sis must be pro­vided in for­mats that are acces­si­ble to all. Be it the BBC or some other insti­tu­tion, it must be reg­u­larly and rig­or­ously checked to ensure it is bias-free.

Main­tain the econ­omy. Ensure that the pub­lic can­not vote to do irrepara­ble dam­age the the econ­omy. Main­tain the free mar­ket where at all pos­si­ble, and if ser­vices should remain nation­alised, such as the NHS, they must be rig­or­ously exam­ined for inef­fi­cien­cies to avoid wast­ing pub­lic money.

Main­tain the wel­fare state. Ensure that the pub­lic can­not vote to fur­ther dis­ad­van­tage those already poor and dis­ad­van­taged. Social secu­rity ben­e­fits must be main­tained and improved upon to ensure that poverty is elim­i­nated and qual­ity of life improves.

Main­tain diplo­matic rela­tions. Rep­re­sent the coun­try inter­na­tion­ally. Ensure that the will of the peo­ple is accu­rately reflected in our deal­ings with other nations and inter­na­tional bodies.