UK's Prime Minister Petition System

Jimmeh

To those who don't know, the Government in Britain have decided to create an online petition system <a href="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/" target="_blank">here</a>. Basically, you can create a petition for the Prime Minister online about anything you wish, from <a href="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/huntingactrepeal/" target="_blank">repealing the hunting act of 2004</a> to <a href="http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/goldanthem/" target="_blank">changing the national anthem to "Gold" by Spandeu Ballet</a>.

The concept is that the Prime Minister reads the big and popular petitions, reads what wants to be happened and possibly do something about it. He then responds to the popular ones saying his opinion on the subject and whether he'll try and follow up with the issue of the petition.

Now, the problems I see are thusly:
1) He doesn't give two ###### what other people think - I've received two emails in response to two popular petitions. One of which was to scrap the incoming road tax policy - it received 1.8m signatures or something along those lines. What did he reply? Basically something along the lines of "###### off". There are ~60.5 million people in Britain. 1.8m is not a huge proportion of this. Would it have been right for the PM to change the Road Tax law based on 1/30th of the population? Around half of the 60million will be unable to drive. Then I'd estimate ~1/3rd of the people who can drive do drive. Then you have to account for internet access etc.. So it could be as many as 1/5th of the people who are going to be affected signing. Yet the PM doesn't do anything.

2) We vote <i>representatives</i> to make choices for us. If we want something different, we vote for people who will do what we want. We don't get to make the choices ourselves - that's what our entire political system is about. Is it right we try and have an input now?

So, will this make a difference? Is it a good idea? Is it a waste of money or is it worthwhile, if just so that the PM can view public opinion?

Discuss.

lolfighter

At the risk of going off-topic, current democracies are representative because they're not practicable otherwise. Ideally, we should, as overall education increases, move towards democracies that are less and less representative (by which I mean that the system should involve people more directly). That's probably a process that will take centuries. Therefore, I think that new measures that attempt to involve the people more directly with the political process should not be outright rejected because they run counter to the representative system - they should be rejected if they don't work.

As for the 1.8 million people, of course you shouldn't just change a law because 1/30th of the population says so. But you might want to consider it, at least. Weigh pro and contra. Figure out if it's a good idea. Remember, it wasn't a vote: It's not like 1/30th voted for changing it and 29/30th voted against. 1/30th want it changed, and 29/30th haven't heard of this system, or don't want it changed (is there an option to sign against?), or don't care, or feel unable to make an informed decision, etc. etc.

The possible benefit of this system, as I see it, is that people can call attention to things they want focus on, topics that the elected officials may not be considering.

Scythe

Well DUH, of course people are going to vote against a tax. Would you expect anything else? If you put up a petition that said "WHO WANTS FREE MONEY?!?! YAAAAYYYYY!" what do you think the outcome would be?

This system could produce some good data if the right questions are asked.

--Scythe--

Rapier7

As populations grow more and more educated, the case of representative democracy grows even stronger. Because too many laws and bills are passed that have nothing to do with your constituents, asides from taking their money.

How many people seriously care about subsidies going to certain industries that they know nothing of? Unless they're majoring in that particular sector, they won't be able to make an informed decision on this. Politicians are probably in the same position, but they have people working for them that make it their business to know these things.

The population never grows more educated, it gets a more specialized education in order to progress the economy. Who's going to major in American history, microeconomics, macroeconomics, accounting, business, computer science, and all the engineering disciplines? Nobody. Who's going to major in one of them? Everybody who goes to college.

Cases like abortion, or Iraq, or affirmative action are the big headlines where people take sides on and argue constantly. Can the same be said of agricultural subsidies, Federal guidelines for fishing trawlers in Alaska, logging contracts and regulations for the timber industry, customs and duty rates on specialized foreign goods?

The real function of the government is to provide regulation and oversight on the latter, the former is just for show. And the people aren't interested or ill-informed to make decisions on the stuff that matters. This only grows increasingly complex as science and technology advances, and new industries and markets emerge. Hence the case for representative democracy.

Thaldarin

<!--quoteo(post=1610349:date=Mar 1 2007, 04:46 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Mar 1 2007, 04:46 PM) [snapback]1610349[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Who's going to major in American history
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->

Well it's the UK, I'd imagine <1%.