Whim — the new politics as a platform I want you to help me make.

Whim. It’s a nice word, isn’t it? It feels like freedom. So I’ve landed on that. Please consider this blog as an invitation and, I guess, a thought paper in one. Consider the subject you’re about to explore as Gig economy politics, even politics-as-a-platform. Bottom-up empowerment, balancing the forces of Globalisation that bend, erode and warp a form of democracy that’s remained largely unchanged since its inception.

(Photo on Visual Hunt.)

Something has happened, a penny has dropped. I can’t “wait” to start this project anymore, it has to be now. Let’s jump off the cliff together, you and I? Timing, as they say, is everything in life. There’s no time like the present [political climate.]

I’ve come to the view that left right and centre in the UK don’t divide us all as much as we think. It’s perfectly possible to elect a left-wing representative, yet balk when they may vote against a right-wing view you hold. That isn’t contradictory. Policy is a toolkit and politics is the business of using it. It just so happens that idealism jumps in, duffs up the open-minded and imposes its will like a bully.

How can we change that?

I run my own startup, and that’s not going to change — things are finally starting to bear fruit! But I love the idea of doing something in VoteTech, democracy (demtech?) innovation. Politics, for me, isn’t that awkward argument, it’s that moment to engage. I respect you more if you have a view and can articulate it — even change my own view because of how well you articulated yours! More often than not, I think something unspoken is happening. Where two views might combine and form a new one. Every discord ultimately results in a merger of culture and ideas, doesn’t it. Some views win more than others — but all have an impact. If Unconscious Bias can exist, so then logically must Unconscious Co-operation exist.

My view on politics is that a citizen should be incentivised to have a view but also, at all times, be open to editing that view.

Sadly, our democratic model hasn’t ever been positively disrupted. Most of the disruption of democracy has come from models of human organisation where less democracy is involved.

We have this barrier, you see, whilst many democracy advocates believe in universal suffrage, they have a real issue with the frequency question. I’ve thought long and hard about why — I think it’s to do with whims. Humans, you see, can be stirred into making irrational short-term choices they may not have made given more time or even in hindsight.

A good example of both of these issues is, of course, don’t yawn, the UK’s leaving the EU. Those who fear to give the usually apathetic, whimsical masses a vote on something like this point to the result and say “told you so”. Too complex for most idiots! They don’t care or know enough. No, they want the masses to vote for the smarter (seriously, do the most talented people go into politics presently?), more sensible people to make those decisions. We call this Representative Democracy, of course. Direct Democracy is bad! Because whims can strike!

I don’t disagree entirely. But I could equally find countless examples of where Representative Democracy falls short, is equally corruptible to whims and the sensible, often pragmatic view of the masses is unable to place a calming democratic hand on the political community’s shoulder and say “whoa, there, wait a second!”.

Just like my perspective of your views on politics, I think that both of these ideas should come together to create a third, better way. Politics as a platform. A platform that can mutually protect against the flawed whims of both forms of democracy. I think you might consider it a form of check and balance. Another institution to protect the nation from the whims of the masses and the whims of the elites. And yes, sorry, “elites” is a muddied word, isn’t it? I can’t think of another moniker for the people who have power, have access to power, or the financial means to wield and influence power… elites will have to do. Since someone has to hold power.

What does Politics as a platform look like? It’s pretty simple really. It’s devolution of the whip. It is an MP or locally elected representative acknowledging the ongoing suffrage potential of a citizen for every subsequent representative decision they might make.

The whip system in party politics Is basically the reverse of this. It ensures that rather than checking with a constituent pool, a representative tows the line! I don’t like it. It works for lubricating the path of legislation, but it is fundamentally undemocratic. A representative, you see, works first and foremost for their constituents. The whip system bakes in an unavoidable political conflict of interest and that compounds — it’s negative output can only be apathy and dysfunctional political polling.

Imagine the reverse. Every registered voter has a small whip. When the representative wins their majority, each constituent citizen delegates to them a whip that’s subject to their whim. The default of this is that the MP can follow their party whip. But, at any time, this whip can be withdrawn by the constituent on a vote by vote basis.

In pratical terms, imagine a particular piece of legislation. The MP will have their own personal view. That may or may not be aligned with their party. If their view is aligned by a party whip, it may differ from their constituents. Now imagine that the MP holds a view that’s divergent from both whip and a majority of constituents! It’s a democratic gap that we have in our system.

I’m not for one moment suggesting Direct Democracy powers everything, I’m saying that Direct Democracy could be devolved at the constituent level to power an MPs mandate. An MP cannot be punished by a party whip for following the democratic demands of their constituents. And the whip system becomes far friendlier, informal, and engaging because at all times it is subject to dissipated democratic oversight.

My suggestion would be to use a technology platform and transfer certain competencies to this new Whim model. Perhaps beginning with second-tier issues — rather than issues of Defence or the NHS! Or everything could be included and a class by class “Super Majority” post could be set, and regularly reviewed. (You wonder what citizens would have told their MP to do when it transpired the EU vote was merely a Simple Majority. Even as a leave voter, I was stunned by that!).

By devolving the whip to an aggregate and balanced whim of the constituents, you overcome the ongoing debate about proportional representation and First Past The Post majority mechanisms. Because ongoing power resides, equally, with the constituents under the devolution of the whip. The Whim of both sides can engage and the outcome will certainly be democratic.

Such a model is not just possible — its even credible. Using available technology we can easily create such a model. Most MPs hold surgeries. We have an electoral roll. We also have very advanced personal identification tools — startups like the UK’s Yoti are a great example. We also have something else! Something quite wonderful. Blockchain.

Imagine this model being underpinned by a distributed ledger. It logged when you or another constituent had made a vote. It can be encrypted or transparent. I guess that’s an argument to be had. But certainly what it does is protect the system and create security. Something democracy is often loath to admit it can lack.

And where there are blockchains, there are cryptos. Could such a system be used to incentivise better quality people to enter political domains and also constituents to better engage their rights? I think so. Imagine using such a model to gift or reward the more engaged. Now conceive that those cryptos could be used in an honours system or another lateral form of democracy. The possibilities are both endless and intimidating. I begin with incorporating blockchain as a concept, foremost because of its ability to protect this process. It has some bonus features, too — so let’s have fun with those!

Above all, though, such a structure is a data well. Knowledge is power and I want constituents to be empowered without a domestic capitalist incentive at play. Anonymised data would also be real-time. No more polls that claim the views of 20,000 can scale up and possibly reflect the views of millions. No more using 1,000 people on an exit poll to argue that people under 20 years old think one way, and over-50s another! True, measurable, guaranteed data.

People don’t actually want to vote on things too often, though. Pure Direct Democracy is chaotic and costly. But that doesn’t mean they wouldn’t lap up the right to vote more often. As such, fused with Representative Democracy, focusing on the core concept of whip and whim, you have something eminently inspiring and viable. You have a choice. Choice should be the ultimate goal and outcome of democracy. By restricting choice immediately after an Election or another Direct Democracy event, you throttle choice and drive citizens to apathy.

We all love cooking — imagine if you couldn’t add salt, herbs or even taste the food in your oven once you’d mixed it up and shut the door? Democracy isn’t baking a cake — where you can’t undo the outcome. It’s a Social Science — it’s always subject to possible review, amendment, and change. It would be far more efficient to have a mechanism for that to be done quickly than to wait as the years roll by and interest wanes. How degrading to the system is that?

Now, I’m not for a second saying an MP must always follow the whim… I’m actually saying that as a Representative, they must also have a choice. They can choose between the party whip (call that Data Point 1), their constituent majority for the whip’s instruction (Data Point 2) and their own personal view (Data Point 3.) There may be times where a representative can neither follow the whip, nor the whim. They may wish to abstain or amend. I think that is the kind of political bravery we need in our system. The opportunity to be the lone voice — with hindsight your only hope.

The ongoing record of a representative with the whim of their constituents and the whip of their party or their conscience is definable at every ballot box. A voter can decide upon basic analysis if their representative keeps their word or has good judgment. Time will tell and choice will prevail.

Such a platform is not just of use for the UK’s representative democracy, it could actually be a globally unifying force. Issues are not isolated, are they? We live in a Global Society. One of the fundamental reasons why I voted against continuing to be part of an integration project of nations was because I had been inspired by the success of Devolution. I just don’t think we’ve gone far enough.

I strongly believe that a Whim-based model as I’ve described could be licensed and replicated the world over and indeed serve, instead of homogeneity and integration, as a heterogeneous way to one day unlock Global Unification — a democratic society with choice, checks, and balances baked in. And most importantly, a fair split of power between citizen and representative. Bottom-up democracy, not top-down technocracy as we see now.

If you’d like to join me in helping to create this project — I’m open to your interest. I have a day job, so I’ll open a crowdfund, and a social enterprise with the advice of some colleagues in this area and dedicate a little bit of time to it. I figure if I tweet 3 times less a day, I’ll have a good splodge of time for this.

It will be a healthy cultural thing as well — because I’m in insurance. Insurance is all about pooling risks. What better way to provide insurance for democracy than by powering the whims of the constituent in a clear, fair and transparent way.

Follow me and tweet #WhimOn or connect on Linkedin to let me start a list… I’ll be in touch again once i’ve nudged this concept forward.

The future is always at our fingertips, lets lean forward together and grab it.