In in the late 17th century the system of government that we now know of a Parliamentary or Representational Democracy started to evolve as the Industrial Revolution changed the demographics of England. Some say it's roots went back to King John and the Magna Carta, but it's hard to say for sure. The Roman state before Augustus had a form of it, and earlier still there is the model of Athens. I'm not especially concerned with getting the history right, but what is sure is that it evolved into what we have here in Britain, the Constitutional Monarchy, and in France and The United States and eventually much of the world (at least nominally), in a time when the fastest way that news could travel was the speed of a pigeon or horse, or perhaps a semaphore telegraph.
This information dissemination speed is quite important, since if a decision needs to be made, it is the critical issue in the speed of response. If the French invade Plymouth, how long does it take for the news to get to London, and the response 'Declare War' and 'Mobilise Army' take to get back. This matter is most interesting perhaps when you consider social issues, such as a new tax, say on Herring catches: Londoners get to hear in an hour or so, but Liverpudlians not for another few days, and Aberdonians, not for a week.
My belief is that the representational system evolved because of the need to make such decisions with the involvement of all the territories, so by having a representative of Aberdeen, they could not later say that their voice was not heard. Of course, from a modern perspective any threat of change could be countered by arguments such as: it's too hard to consider everyone's view, or, not everyone has the education to make these decisions, or, even, some people should not be allowed to express their views because they don't conform to social norms. They would also be resisted by those who make a lot of wealth for themselves out of the operation of our current situation.
But the situation has changed. If Australia invaded Laos, I would probably know within an hour, certainly with a day. If a minister proposes legislation that affects me, I will know within hours, and have a ready means to make my own representations directly and via my representative in parliament minutes later, and I live 300 miles from London and 8 miles from the nearest post office. If we truly believe in democracy, then we need to take a step back and look again at the way we arrange the business of government.
I have a number of models in my head, but will only describe this one, which I call the Popular Monarchy model, I am not aware of it having been tried, or even proposed. Briefly, in this model everything remains as it is in our Constitutional Monarchy, except that the Monarch requires a simple majority vote of the people before Royal Assent can be granted. For this to work, Parliament will have an additional responsibility to ensure that the people are informed - and I mean by that they have explained the Act in language that an average person can understand. One easy way of achieving that is to ensure that the Minister proposing the legislation has it phrased in such a way that ordinary people, as opposed to trained lawyers, can see the impact and issues clearly. Clearly the second big issue is the cost of the vote.
I'm not sure how much a plebiscite costs using polling stations, ballot boxes, voting clerks, vote counters, returning officers, and of course all the publicity, printing of election material and the rest of the paraphernalia. On top of this I am aware that postal voting appears to be the easiest method of introducing fraud into the process - if recent events are anything to go by. However we have managed to move banking, that other big secure issue of modern life from ledgers and clerks to computers and encrypted transactions, so I see few obstacles to taking plebiscites into the same domain.
For a cost which cannot be much more than the cost of one national plebiscite could we not issue every voter with a digital Voter-ID linked to a couple of biometrics, such as an Iris scan or finger print? Such a system does not need to be foolproof, just more foolproof than turning up with a postcard bearing your name and address! Indeed a digital voting card could be issued for each plebiscite, catering then for improvements in technology as time goes on. My thinking would be that every child would have to attend a session in school to have their Voter-ID taken before they got their GCSE results, and immigrants the same at the port of entry (I would record everyone, visitors included, but that is another matter) - this leaves those over 16 for a one off visit to register for life. The Voter-ID is only checked against the biometrics in the case of a challenge, and at periodic registration checks. Can this be too hard? The annual voter registration return that we all have to make now becomes a confirmation of the current email address linked to the confirmation of entitling residence.
To confirm an Act, Mr Speaker issues a notice to the voting authority, the authority sends the notification to every eligible voter who returns their vote with a digital copy of their Voter-ID. The voting computers check that the Voter-ID matches the vote and records it. After some agreed time, a day or perhaps a week, the result totals are announced.
We do need parliamentarians, someone needs to scrutinise the actions of the courts and of the administration, we still need the great and good in the Lords to ensure that we have put enough brainpower into the law. We can't just have rule by public opinion, the media are too good at manipulating it. But we do need to involve people in this, and not just as spectators.
It is my belief that if they are truly involved - with a right to inform the Monarch of their final agreement - then politics will change for the better, and the people will not be treated as the ignorant scum that many MPs today appear to think they are.
Now, even if you think this is a good idea, even if the government were convinced, and the parliamentarians got behind this, there is one big problem. Setting up a simple system will never be allowed. Someone will say, couldn't it also be a national ID system, the Police MUST be able to access it for crime prevention, local Government parking meter attendants need to access it, and so a great edifice will be build, and the cost will spiral out of control. The system I have in mind is simple, cheap, easy to do - it is no more or less secure than postal voting or poll cards. For the most part it requires the same decree of security as the Electoral Roll, except that when a poll is called an authority sends a highly secure individualised digital certificate to each voter, and when the vote returns the system checks so see that it has been duly signed. There is nothing here for the Police or the LG Car Park Gestapo, unless we let the Civil Service egg the pudding.
