Answers

What if I don't have Internet access? 

A great idea - bringing back the voice of the people! ..... But what happens for those who don't have access to technology? I hope it goes well - you've got my vote!

That is a very good question. Although digital access is now widespread and perfectly suited for secure information exchange, we have thought of those who might not be able to easily get online. We are planning to include a telephone service for those who wish to register, as well as a paper-based service for those who can't use a phone. Whatever it takes, we'll make it work. 

Will majority rule be unfair for minorities?

How would that work when everyone would vote for better cancer treatments and yet would vote for lower taxes? A democracy relies not just of majority votes but also its care for minority opinion.

That is what politics is grappling with at the moment. But we just leave it to those who convince us they know best. Also, if I win my seat, the FoD will be 1/650th of any decisions. It's not a huge amount but it will be more influence than any other public has had. Ever. I don't want us to avoid this historic choice by extrapolating what an entire house of commons looks like under this system - that is many decades away.

Is the public well-informed enough?

Sounds good if everybody took time to inform themselves of both sides of a debate before casting a vote. What if an Internet based propaganda campaign could persuade ill informed masses of people to vote in a particular way which may not best serve the people of your constituency.

Are you if/when elected not paid to spend your time studying the matters involved and listening to people from both sides of the table before coming to an informed and educated conclusion on behalf of those who voted for you?!

Allowing people to inform themselves is part of the model. There will be a forum for each Bill, and people can read more about it, examine evidence and exchange opinions. Crucially, they will be allowed to change their vote as many times as they like before the site’s deadline to allow for ‘new news’.

People are disengaged with politics because they think it’s just about Prime Minister’s questions, bawling at the dispatch box and Question Time. But it isn’t. It’s about school class sizes, whether you can walk where you want and traffic polluting your home. As the Bills come through that affect what’s important to you, you will want to get involved. The system will create a virtuous cycle of interest and involvement.

Your point about an Internet-based propaganda campaign and ill-informed masses is more of a problem under the current way of doing things, in my opinion. Fake news stories and scary headlines work when people only get to exercise their choices at election time. Given the way my system works as outlined above, more detailed examination of each issue, and only the ones you care about undermines casually-consumed mass misinformation.

As you will see on the website, the forums in the system force users (who can only be registered voters) to be identified. So if someone brings fake news information to the forum, others can research and correct them and only real, local people can ever contribute. Trump was elected using a similar system to ours - do we think that is best serving his constituents?

On your final point, no. I will not be paid to study matters and listen to both sides before coming to an educated conclusion. That is simply the means that has evolved, not the objective. It is no longer necessary to work like that. It’s a bit like saying ‘aren’t you paid to turn up and sit at your desk?’ when your real role might be to sell a product. Why sit at the desk if you can sell more in a smarter way? My job is to primarily represent my constituents and this is the smart way to do it.

Even the language of ‘both sides of the table’ hints at a deeply entrenched belief that there are only two sides to politics - there are millions. I will be paid to represent my constituents, fight for any of their individual concerns or needs and champion the interests the Forest of Dean.

What if nobody gets involved?

What if nobody votes for a bill? Or if the results are not 'significant statistically'?

There will be a 'nobody's interested' cut-off point for voting. And, in the early stages, statistical significance is not as important as community involvement. This platform is designed to increase voter engagement and even low volume voting will never be as statistically misleading as a single MP voting as their party instructs or following their own will.

What if you disagree with the opinion of your constituents?

Julian. What happens if people vote for you to represent a view that you fundamentally disagree with. Are you an empty vessel of the people or do you have your own manifesto?

The problem with having principles (plural) is they can conflict. I have one principle (within the context of election) - that democracy means people deciding their own fate. I'm not an empty vessel because my platform gives me the opportunity to sway my constituents to my way of thinking. If I don't manage that either I was wrong or I didn't argue it well enough

How will you ensure the quality of the information people use ?

It sounds like a great idea, but I have reservations. Mainly people voting based on unreliable information provided by the media. How will you make sure the people with the correct information are heard and people are not distracted by the passionate spreaders of ill informed opinion? Will the forum be managed with people who officially verify information?

1. Because the forum is populated only by named constituents (along with the area they live in), there is no room for bots and fake alternative identities - each contributor is identifiable and verified using electoral roll / NI data (internally and securely).

2. People are already voting on unreliable information from both the established media and public-propelled false news. The difference is with this system, instead of being galvanised into tribal opposites, the public will be making decisions on well-defined, smaller areas of consideration which are harder to obscure with emotion-led misinformation.

3. And finally, a key role of this system is to help people become better informed. Local experts will be drawn to certain subject areas (i.e. nurses to health, farmers to agriculture) which will then provide better information for the interested lay-voter. Users will be able to upload official documents and other sources so that people can draw attention to, or counter, specific points with quality evidence.

At all adds up to a much more thorough information-sharing and decision-making system than the existing media and representation model. 

How will you securely deal with people's identities?

I've read your information on how only named constituents will be allowed to vote using this web system but can you please clarify how you intend to control this?  What measures have been taken to ensure that only the named constituents have voted and not someone on their behalf or instead of them?  What level of access do you have to the electoral role and NI information and how will this be effectively used to identify and verify votes?  Who will do this verification and what measures will/have been taken to ensure their integrity and reliability?  What measures will you take you effectively manage and control the voters personal information and votes legally?

I don’t know if you live in my constituency or not, but imagine you did and I win.

There are instantly around 70,000 IDs available on the system - one for each registered voter. You would input your name, surname and postcode. Then the system would ask you to confirm that you are [FirstName] [Surname] of 5 Bellevue Terrace.  You confirm. This bit is just for you to know that you have found the correct ID for you. Now comes the bit to check you are who you say you are.

You are asked to put in your National Insurance Number, Date of Birth and Electoral Roll number - all of which are easily accessible for the correct person but difficult for the wrong person to get together. Once we have verified it’s you (we don’t hold the data, we ask the Governmental database to confirm or deny the submissions) you are free to set up a password and include contact details (email, mobile and landline) for resetting in the future if necessary. Two-stage verification will also be available. 

If fraudsters get around all this and, for example, you find your ID already taken you will be able to report it and we will investigate it. We will also be doing follow up checks, at random to proactively ensure users are who they say they are. The system is being built by an established digital company whose other clients include the Royal Navy and the Marines, so they are well-versed in producing secure systems and the operational checks that go alongside them - including third-party integrity audits.