Turnout for Britain鈥檚 general election next week is predicted to be spectacularly low. Would online voting change that? Stephan Shakespeare thinks so. He reckons that the Internet could revolutionise politics. Shakespeare stood as a Conservative candidate in the election four years ago and ran Lord Archer鈥檚 abortive campaign for London mayor last year, but he insists his campaign is non-partisan. His website, YouGov.com, is the first in Britain to promote political debate between voters and government. And as he told Michael Bond, it also makes a tidy profit.
Surely Britain鈥檚 political system is designed to empower people. How can the Internet improve on it?
As it now stands, the political process in Britain empowers a few people. To borrow a phrase from New Labour, we are looking to empower not the few but the many. If you want to get involved in the political process, then the system works rather well for you. If you鈥檙e not that kind of person-and some 95 per cent of people are not-then you鈥檙e going to be turned off.
Advertisement
And you think the Internet will involve everyone?
In time it will. Twenty years ago, all opinion polling was by face-to-face interviews. Then ICM came along and pioneered telephone polls. People said you couldn鈥檛 do it properly because not everyone was on the phone. Now most opinion polling is by telephone. It鈥檒l be the same with the Internet.
Your website promotes e-democracy, but it鈥檚 also a commercial polling business with corporate clients, and you have commercial backers. Doesn鈥檛 this compromise you?
To me, it enhances the concept of e-democracy. E-democracy is not just about the relationship of the citizen to government, it鈥檚 also about the relationship of the citizen to corporations. Our lives are controlled almost as much by what corporations do as what governments do. Whatever your suspicions of multinationals, creating a platform for consultation must be a positive move. Citizens can start to have power over companies by telling them what they think. If corporations want a reputation for social responsibility, they need to show they are taking the public鈥檚 views on board.
Isn鈥檛 there a danger that political parties will exploit online surveys, for example by identifying floating voters, finding out what they want and tailoring policies to fit?
The advantage of opinion research is that if you know what people really want and you know what they think, you are able to serve them better. The disadvantage is that it makes manipulation easier. For online consultation between government and citizens to develop, we will need a code of practice that lays down some ground rules and an independent arbiter to report on the exercise. That way it would become truly interactive. The government could not simply use the information for its own purposes, but would be held responsible for how it was using it.
Isn鈥檛 better communication through the Internet going to boost tactical voting? People in different constituencies, for example, will be able to 鈥渟wap鈥� votes more easily. Is that dangerous?
I think tactical voting is an inevitable consequence of a party system that can never really reflect the views of the population. Through much of the Thatcher era, considerably less than 50 per cent of the people supported the government, yet she was dominant throughout. Tactical voting is an obvious answer to that anomaly in the system. It can only work when people are sufficiently happy with one of the alternative parties. A party will only lose out in tactical voting if it fails to be many voters鈥� second preference. That鈥檚 the party鈥檚 problem, so in that sense you could argue that tactical voting enhances democracy.
Take e-democracy and direct consultation to their extreme and you challenge the principles of representative democracy. Is that desirable?
You鈥檝e come to the nub of the issue. The principle of no taxation without representation-I pay you my taxes but in return I get a say in how you govern me-dates back to the Boston Tea Party in 1773. Since then there鈥檚 been a tremendous increase in the scope of government, but no significant increase in the nature of representation-of democracy. Back then it was impractical to have votes every day. Now, with the help of the Internet, we can have votes every day. We can have a more direct democracy. The argument against direct democracy is that people are likely to make short-term choices. Everybody will vote for a fuel-tax cut, and for more spending on health and education, and those things don鈥檛 necessarily match up. But this objection assumes that the electorate will not grow more responsible as direct democracy develops. The idea that people will always vote for their short-term interests is itself a consequence of the fact that they don鈥檛 have responsibility for how their country is run.
What makes you so sure?
I used to be a teacher. The greatest challenge in teaching is to make pupils understand that they鈥檙e working for themselves and that they can take charge of their lives. Then they act more responsibly. We elect leaders for five years and we end up disliking them because we see them as running off with the agenda and not having to respond to us. We have no power, so we feel responsibility.
That鈥檚 all very well, but how do you run a country like that?
Change has got to be gradual. I don鈥檛 know that I do want direct democracy. I suspect that maybe I don鈥檛. But we can start to walk down that road by having much more consultation and by taking it seriously, and by forcing people who want to consult to do it properly. That鈥檚 a long way from giving people daily referenda on the running of the country. I think it would be disastrous to leap too fast along that road.
But if you go for a more direct democracy, and diminish the role of MPs, what would that do to the authority of Parliament?
We always need a final decision-maker, and it must be Parliament. I wouldn鈥檛 want to mess with that. But how can we make Parliament into a good decision-maker? Only through more openness and interaction with the people.
Why do you need the Internet for that? Don鈥檛 MPs already represent people鈥檚 views quite effectively?
MPs are forced to stick to the party line 99 per cent of the time. They鈥檙e not able to look at the needs of their constituents objectively because they鈥檝e always got their party hat on.
You say online voting will improve participation, but the root cause of low turnout is apathy. Can technology do anything about that?
The effect of your personal vote on the outcome of an election is very small. You might vote from a sense of duty, but the return you get from your walk to the polling booth is minimal. Letting you vote in a place you are more likely to be, whether it鈥檚 the supermarket or at your computer terminal, can only encourage people to take part.
Doesn鈥檛 that cheapen the political process? Doesn鈥檛 voting require more thought?
In fact, you鈥檙e more likely to do some thinking about the politics if you vote online. It鈥檚 possible to present a more complex case online -on screen people can be taken through an argument and then asked the question.
But if Internet polling means you don鈥檛 need to go out to vote and you don鈥檛 need to visit your MP, what does that do to your sense of society and community?
There are all kinds of communities. A lot of people get a greater sense of community when they鈥檙e online than when they鈥檙e offline. The point is to give people as many choices as possible. Nobody鈥檚 suggesting that any political consultation should only be online. There鈥檚 always got to be an offline version, otherwise it will exclude people.
But is that a good thing if you have less interaction with your MP?
That argument ignores reality. Very few people have contact with their MP and the majority of people don鈥檛 know who their MP is. And there鈥檚 the additional question of empowerment. A large proportion of people meeting their MP are going to be a little bit awed by him or her. It鈥檚 much easier to communicate honestly with a machine. Research from the US shows that people tend to be more honest in Internet polls, because they鈥檙e not faced with somebody who may be making a judgement about what they鈥檙e saying. If you have an unpopular view, you鈥檙e less likely to communicate it to someone face to face, especially to someone who鈥檚 powerful, than you are to an anonymous machine.
So you don鈥檛 have much faith in the way MPs represent their constituents?
That鈥檚 not entirely true. My experience in working with MPs is that they really want to do well by their constituents. What I鈥檓 saying is that it doesn鈥檛 address the reality of people鈥檚 daily lives to say this is the optimum way, or the only way. A lot of people are nervous of the political process. When you go on the Internet, nobody鈥檚 judging you. It鈥檚 very empowering.
Some MPs refuse to reply to e-mails because of the volume they get, and because they think it鈥檚 not the best way of communicating . . .
Do they want to deal only with those people who write letters, or do they want to deal with everybody? MPs have to face their voters, and the day will come when 70 per cent of voters are online and writing to each other by e-mail. If their MP won鈥檛 accept e-mail, they鈥檒l say that鈥檚 his problem and let鈥檚 get rid of him.
What about fraud?
There is almost no control over the existing voting system. With the Internet you know that you鈥檝e been hacked into, and there is at least a trail. It鈥檚 potentially more secure. It鈥檚 certainly secure enough for opinion polling.
Do you accept that your vision for e-democracy may not work out as you hope?
I鈥檓 certainly prepared to accept that it may not be the answer to all our democratic needs. That it improves the way a citizen can express his or her views is hard to challenge.