Online Banking — Online Governance
If I can handle my banking online why can’t I run my country online?
Wouldn’t that be better, more responsive democracy? Why do I need politicians to represent me? I can see why they were necessary in the past but why do I need them now? If I can access my online bank account why can’t I access my online Citizen account and vote daily? What do I need politicians for? All I need is an army of civil servants to carry out the wishes of the people?
The idea is pretty simple and started with my wondering about online banking. When I first heard about online banking I thought it was one of those great ideas that hadn’t a hope.
If it was run up the flagpole in a pub, or some other social scrum, the consensus would be that it would never get off the ground.
“They’ll never be able to make it secure.”
“It’ll be infested with swarms of hackers emptying bank accounts with the click of a mouse.”
But, surprise, surprise, they got it to work. And more than that they managed to convince everyone it was safe to use. Even people who are normally computer averse will still use online banking. My eighty-three year old mother being a case in point; she does all her banking online.
So I thought if they can get online banking to work, then surely it would be possible to get online governance to work. Give everyone in the country an online citizen account. We could log into it the same way we log into our online bank account, but instead of moving our money around we could vote, daily if necessary. The results could be tabulated almost instantly and policy could be changed accordingly.
Once we get this system set up we wouldn’t need politicians anymore. Not that I have anything against politicians as such, they just seem obsolete. I can see why they exist historically. Back then I might have needed somebody to represent me in government because I was either too uneducated, or too busy surviving to stay informed about upcoming law or policies, but not now.
As things stand we get an opportunity to vote for our representatives once every four years, or whatever it is in your country, then we give the elected representatives the power to make decisions on our behalf — we allow them to represent us.
And then we’re stuck with them. We sit outside the walls of government hoping they make the right choices, or at least the choices we would make, and generally feel disempowered and removed from the decision making process.
The politicians, for their part, have to twist themselves into knots trying to please all of the people all of the time, particularly in the lead up to an election, then once in office have to put up with us complaining about everything they do.
Sure it’s no wonder they need drivers and private jets.
No, hang on . . .
We relate to our politicians as if they were celebrities, which they are not, they are public servants. They have simply put their hand up and said, “Okay, I’ll run the country if you want me to.” Then we give them all this power and expect them not to be changed or affected by it.
With online governance we wouldn’t need any of this because we wouldn’t need anyone to represent us. We would represent and govern ourselves directly.
Implementation I think the software that runs the online system would need to be open source meaning no company or individual should own or control it. Making the system open source would skip over a lot of the security issues because if the code for the system is open to everyone then ironically the chances of somebody hacking it are less. It would also make the system nimble and responsive, two words not currently associated with our political system.
If the online system is open source then the focus can be on providing integrity to the end user, you and me. If it is operated like any other open source system there would be an army of motivated savvy programmers improving the system and also monitoring it to make sure no one was gaming the system or making it biased.
An online voting system is great but how will we decide what we vote about? Who will shape policy?
There are a lot of words surrounding policy formulation but it boils down to a simple process — politicians just make it up. Their reasons for making it up are varied, sometimes it will be to do with a pressing issue, sometimes it will be to do with an upcoming election, sometimes it will be prompted by interested groups — money.
“If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough.” Albert Einstein
Most policy I have read, and that’s not a lot, is written in very convoluted language. It’s almost as if it is written in a way that will intentionally make the meaning and intent of the policy unclear. Here in Ireland, in the run up to a referendum a booklet will arrive in the mail, “explaining,” the changes to the constitution. This all seems like a load of obfuscation, which is to say bullshit, to me.
We don’t need someone else to formulate policy for us we can formulate policy ourselves.
Here’s how we would formulate or change policy with online governance. If there is something you want introduced or changed, whether it is a new network of bicycle tracks, yes please, or a change to the abortion laws, you can instigate a policy change through the online system. Like a wikipedia entry, your policy can be modified and refined as more people become aware of, interested in, and involved in the process until a critical mass of interest is reached. A critical mass of interest would be a threshold percentage of the population. For example, if 50% of the population think your policy is worth bringing to a vote. Once your policy had reached this threshold it would go on to the next stage where we vote on implementing the change.
If your policy doesn’t reach the critical mass threshold then it doesn’t get voted on. Not everyone may be as passionate about the rights of garden gnomes as you are.
Once the policy is approved by a majority vote it would be implemented by the army of civil servants already in place.
I’m not naive enough to think that Enda Kenny, Ireland’s current prime minister, is going to call me in the morning and say, “God, that’s a great idea John, lets switch to online governance right now and I can go on a holiday.”
I think a reasonable model for how it could be introduced is if the online system was set up in tandem with the existing system. Once implemented, I think politicians would quickly see that the online voting system was a much more accurate barometer of what people really wanted rather than the polls the politicians currently use.
Speed of response
The immediate response of the online system would highlight the huge difference between what goes on in government and what goes on in the street.
I could see that by the time the next general election came around a host of new independent representatives would emerge with the single agenda of handing representation back to the people through online governance.
Short distance vision
The distance this idea has to travel is not far. It’s not like when Martin Luther King made his dream speech in 1967 where the distance between where he was and the vision for the future he described was so vast. What I’m suggesting could happen very quickly if we all wanted it to.
End of war
What is really appealing about this idea is that it could prevent wars. For example, if there was an online governance system in place in a country, the chances of that country attacking another country would be significantly less.
If you have read this far and you think this is an idea that could provide a solution to some of the problems in the world, then share it far and wide. Tell your friends. Use it at dinner parties. Take credit for it if you like, I don’t mind, I’d just like to see it happen. Particularly share it with any software engineers or hackers you know that could make it happen.
I’ve just outlined the broad strokes as I see them add your voice to refining the idea in the comments section below.