As before, this thread can be used to post comments or ask questions about the general process of this experiment - both in terms of how it operates in general and how it functions on the openDemocracy website.
In response to feedback generated in the previous discussion, the openDemocracy technical staff have made two changes - implementation of a "branching" conversation system (where replies to specific comments appear next to the comment they are replying to) and changes to the "big/small" "dull/bright" system to ensure that comments always remain readable. Any comments on how these changes have changed your experience would be very welcome.
I don't have a lot of time, I have read through the many options twice and cannot understand what i am being asked to do and why they repeat each other in odd ways. I notice that my preferred option, the voters should be able to decide where a small dedicated amount of public money goes to political parties (as proposed by Power Inquiry), is not on offer. I am very opposed to any system which locks funding to existing size of parties or votes for this as this funds the status quo.
{Ed. It therefore sounds as if you support option D. I hope the point you make about the Power Enquiry is covered by note ii). The relevant bits of that enquiry are in my comment below. Peter Emerson}
I agree with Anthony. The editor's reply is wrong, there is nothing in D about separating vote for candidate from vote for funding. Also, it refers only to funding of parties. Where do independents come into this? A voter allocated sum could go to independents too. I want a system that is fair to small parties from Greens to UKIP ( and if the BNP get some, well that's democracy). The importance of separating vote from allocation of funds is ignored, although in the explanation the need for it appears to have been understood.
{Ed. I think you'll find the point about separate votes is covered in note ii) See also my comment on the Power Enquiry, immediately below. Peter Emerson.}
The Power Enquiry made the following recommendastions:
19. Donations from individuals to parties should be capped at £10,000, and
organisational donations capped at £100 per member, subject to full
democratic scrutiny within the organisation.
20. State funding to support local activity by political parties should be introduced
based on the allocation of individual voter vouchers. This would mean that at
a general election a voter will be able to tick a box allocating a £3 donation
per year from public funds to a party of his or her choice to be used by that
party for local activity. It would be open to the voter to make the donation to a
party other than the one they have just voted for.
{Ed. So, given our note ii), we think the point on vouchers is covered by option I. Note ii) is on the Phase II page:
I agree that your options seem overly complicated. It would seem much easier to separate the various factors and vote/discuss each of them. e.g. Do you think there should be state funding, yes/no? Do you think state funding should be allocated by vote/threshhold/etc? Do you think corporate/organisational donations should be allowed? Do you think individual donations should be allowed?
I know my answer to each of these questions (and more!) but I had to read back and forth and consider your grid to work out which of your options was closest to what I favour.
It would also seem more sensible for the discussion to be structured around these questions, rather than into options. A discussion about reasons for banning organisational donations, or capping individual donations, might at present take place in almost any of the forums - so the discussion will be fractured.
I also agree with the above poster that state funding tied to voter action is my preferred action, but there's a difference between it being tied to votes cast in the election and tied to the voter ticking a box to allocate their allowance to a party. Your options don't seem to recognise this, in the sense that I can't choose unambiguously NOT to have it allocated by votes cast. I can think of reasons (e.g. I'm voting tactically) why I might want to vote for one party but financially support another.
And finally, I can't help feeling you've gone about this in a rather worthy and serious way and you'd be getting more participation if it was a bit more fun, lighthearted, etc. How many people signed that petition on changing the national anthem to 'Gold' by Spandau Ballet? How representative are participants in this likely to be? We probably all work in e-democracy...
But sorry for being critical, good on you for doing this. I'm interested to see how it turns out.
I agree that the options are over-complicated and that working through sets of issues about state funding, donations, other sources of income, the party/individual splt, the constituency/national split, the desirable degree of ring-fencing, the position of indirect political participants, etc. might be more helpful.
I have still to wrap my wet towel round my head before venturing an opinion on the options. But it is very interesting as a process, to which its confusingness -one of the more realistic aspects, after all, in relation to preparation for voting in many circumstances -makes its contribution.
I agree with Sophia C and Richard J - we reviewing options without really teasing where we stand and what our concerns are about the underlying issues we are trying to treat. Does the process allow us to go back a few steps?
Jon replied to previous question concerning lack of mention of separation of votes for funding from those for the election by stating that is is covered in note ii. I don't know what you mean by "covered", except that it is merely mentioned that some people wished to see this happen, and none disagreed. Despite this it is not given as a part of any of the options.
Hi Chris - Peter replied to your previous comment, not myself. But anyway, what we meant by that is that the option to separate vote cast from funding allocated is taken as a given - so any options presented here include that facility - as no-one seems to think we shouldn't have it in. I agree that isn't quite clear in note ii - i'm changing it to reflect that
I'm still thinking about the different options that have emerged from Stage 1.
But I just wanted to share a process reflection at this stage, which is that there are 13-14 options which have emerged from the Stage 1 review. They look to me like a fair reflection of the discussion is stage 1.
But as a facilitator who quite often has to take groups through making choices between sets of options, I have to say that it's almost impossible to visualise more than 5-7 options. Obviously (this is an experiment) I'll print out the page and work through the list of options.
The conventional wisdom is that people can keep 5 plus/minus 2 concepts in their heads at one time (i.e 3 - 7). So: if we re-did this on another subject - would there be a way of grouping concepts and sub-concepts into 5-7 groups?
Best
Andrew Curry
{Ed. Hence the summary, with just the five families. So we did try. Peter Emerson.}
Hi
I am aware that i have not bren able to contribute so far. Just to give feedbakc on the procees -- I am feeling a bit defeated as there is too much to read to try to get into the feel of the disucssion, as well as the long list of combinations. I agree with the comment that the long list is too much to be able to carry mentally at once. I don't feel I can catch up. If the emails had been coming into my inbox every day I wouldn't have got behind (like yahoo egroups with a daily digest).
As before, this thread can be used to post comments or ask questions about the general process of this experiment - both in terms of how it operates in general and how it functions on the openDemocracy website.
In response to feedback generated in the previous discussion, the openDemocracy technical staff have made two changes - implementation of a "branching" conversation system (where replies to specific comments appear next to the comment they are replying to) and changes to the "big/small" "dull/bright" system to ensure that comments always remain readable. Any comments on how these changes have changed your experience would be very welcome.