We shouldn't be scared of Direct Democracy. Choice is power.

Lazy Summary:

• In 100 years of democracy, how much has it truly evolved?
• Voters should be given more choice and power and direct influence
• Voters should be able to Indicatively Vote to influence their MP
• These votes are not referendums, because they reflect the daily votes the MP is making in the House of Commons
• Voters should be able to choose to keep their MP voting "for them" or toggle off to override and specify a voting preference
• Voters could do this via applications (with Blockchain and Web3 technology offering a solution to anonymity concerns) or simple in-constituency voter stations or paper-to-digital reading devices
• This data builds an inter-election picture of how effective the MP is
• Mis and Dis information battles can be orientated around this new Choice that is given to voters

In our democracy, everyone gets the same vote - but they don't get the same power. At General Elections, Local Elections and in Referendums - we each get one vote. It's only afterwards where those with capital get more votes - because of the power they wield. We call this "Lobbying" and, whilst it is absolutely legitimate, it's a closed shop for millions in a country with increasing Wealth Inequality.

Polls and Lobbyists get the power after elections

After elections, that's it for the general citizens. For the news cycle, and political class, the view of the voter is gauged by anecdotal experiences like "i've been receiving a lot of letters" (The Right Hon. Any MP), polls and politically engaged groups.

Lobby groups tend to represent companies or interest groups (let's explore: Corporate Suffrage another day), whose issues may be important to voters who are employed by them, rely on them, trade with them or have shares in them. But the correlation is weak - and in the age of Globalism, ever more so.

Polls are therefore the best way, between election events, to get a steer on the public's state of mind. Yet, they are always a snapshot. There's often a trick to the way the question is asked, and they cost money to commission. You won't find your average Universal Credit recipient commissioning a poll to understand if the application process should be changed. It's not credible.

Polls are unarguably a tool of the lobby. Lobby groups don't have much competition. It's a reason why more direct democratic engagement could have a truly impactful role to play.

Sadly, especially since the Brexit referendum, the idea of votes on singular specific issues has been totally sunk. Why? Well, scars of memory, of course! What if people vote the wrong way...?

There's two definitions of 'wrong' - one of them more bigoted than the other. We've all heard the comment before... It might be friends, colleagues, or a talk radio host - disparaging some people's ability to vote.

"You should need a minimum IQ or education level to vote!" Regardless of the lack of empirical data - it's completely crass.

Then, of course, there's how "informed" we are. A lot of the decisions government takes are complex - how could your average citizen ever ever ever truly know which Aye, Nay or Abstain to choose. The odds are too great for all these meagre mind!

(Spoiler: look up a concept called the "Wisdom of the Crowd"). It asserts that, yes, individually we may not all get it spot on - but between all of our gazes, the average answer will emerge.

Yet, after a big election - we don't get another say? Only those with deep pockets or good connections, do. Your power is truncated, intermittent and, in the backdrop of the party political system, derivative anyway.

This was even more the case within the EU. Even more deferring of power to institutions you did not elect. Over 40 years in the EU your vote did not compound or increase in power.

Now, why is that? Whether by accident or design - it doesn't have to be tolerated or perpetuated.

Direct Democracy at Constituency Level

Referendums on single issues are expensive. They are also issued from the legislative chambers. Secondary. Why not just give voters the chance to influence the primary votes. Cut out the unnecessary stages and allow a more fluid relationship between regular business (undertaken by representatives) and the voters.

MPs are, by their nature, representing their constituents with votes weekly, daily - sometimes hourly. In light of increasingly polarised issues and party-politics - it is beginning to look untenable that, with all the myriad sources of information, distribution of fact and fact checking - they can avoid asking you what you think, more often.

On a big "single issue" like - "should the flag be blue or white", referendums are over simplifications and create polarity. It's also worth noting that, despite the Brexit referendum offering an overwhelming mandate - it was Parliament that continued to debate and implement it. We all had the power to choose how we voted - but the result was, at least legally, indicative.

It's probably valid to say rare, big issue referendums are confusing and complicated. But across hundreds of constituencies? Interesting data might emerge.

Direct Democracy with your MP after a General Election needn't be mandatory.

It's all about Choice. For SuperCo, Choice is Power.

Just as referendum's are legally indicative - regular constituent votes could be, too.

Every voter would have the option to continue to let their representative run on auto-pilot. Or, like the party their MP belongs to - they could "remove the whip" and classify their vote. (That vote might be the same as the MPs, but it is now a statistic, not a thought or estimate.)

Here's the Choice:

1) Auto Representation - let your MP continue to vote how they see fit

2) Manual Representation - withdraw your own whip to the MP.

3) Choose how to Manually represent - Aye, Nay or Abstain.

This is Choice. Choice is Power.

If every MP across the UK had such a system, really interesting outcomes would proliferate. Those outcomes could create influence for voters in a way only lobby groups enjoy.

All that data makes for a powerful influence over the political class. How they handle their own choices will matter - because at the next election for their seat, the record will stand in 0s and 1s. And you'll judge them by it.

How would more direct democracy work in practice?

We're blessed in the sense that deploying this vote choice is no longer unfeasible. Most citizens have mobile devices. Applications could be developed. Voters could be given digital keys for anonymous voting IDs. Like owning a Crypto currency - your vote would be a prescious thing.

Perhaps the constituency office of the future is more a safe deposit box venue then purely an office?

To be inclusive, a voting device or a handful could be posted across the area - at Post Offices. Or they could play host to paper voting/digital reading devices.

When you begin empowering more democracy - there are fantastic data opportunities.

This data is also newsworthy - which means licensing it is a revenue stream. News outlets could unpack top level age and demographic data in real time. The data would include the number of voters choosing to switch off auto-pilot voting. Signals far in advance of voting patterns could be given off by this data.

The possibilities are bountiful. Both for voter and state. After all - the state's job is to ensure society is prospering and functioning - why would the State take issue with better data on that? (We all know the answer - power doesn't like to be divided up... it blobs together.)

It's about the Question, not the answer

To conclude, you have to realise that Direct Democracy at Constituent level is totally different to the Referendum. Because the "question" is different. MPs aren't asked to answer questions - they vote on motions. And they can use them, too!

Issues that MPs vote on are more granular - and presented as law. Law is complex, but it is still accessible. Around a direct democracy at constituency level you could foresee an ecosystem of Plain English, driven by the MPs themselves, the media and the many fact checkers of the age.

You have the technology in your pocket - and touch screens could be inclusively deployed across the constituency. You have the information - it's out there. And you might be gobbling up misinformation or disinformation - kettling your ignorance for one big crescendo.

Wouldn't more regular votes give you the chance to learn whether you are making the right decisions or not?

It's time for a change. Measured, sensible and evolutionary. We don't need to break the system to improve it.