To arrive at the (still evolving) Enact system has taken much deliberation, research and argument. On this page we set out the reasons and motivations for this set of additions to our democracy starting with...
The Problem
Any organization will always eventually become corrupt.
Currently governmental systems are only as good as those individuals that run them. Therefore only a matter of time before a large enough proportion of members are not morally upstanding. When this happens members effectively go rough and no longer hold the system in high regard throwing out tradition, previously accepted rules. Rot sets in, trust is lost and the system no longer performs its original function.
Other traits help steer towards the inevitable such as over confidence and naivete. Many many factors determine the current members at any one time so when or how the system will break may not be known until it happens or even after it has happened. A well designed system can mitigate these risks to run for hundreds of years before the perfect storm conditions appear that bring it down.
The solution to this problem then is to have as many members making up that system as possible, the more there are the more difficult it is for any malign internal, external or personal influences to have any effect.
Why this system?
As we want so many people involved Enact is simple but has the necessary protections. Much of this is taken care of by the type and order of the votes and proposals. A few require their own rules to be sure the system keeps its integrity.
Petition:
This is commonly used by the public already so nice and familiar. It is also very inclusive because any one can start or sign petitions even under 18s if they are a UK citizen. Importantly it means the call for changes come from the public not a party, MP's or lobbying.
Proposal:
Once the public have petitioned for change we next need ideas put forward that seek to fulfill the requirement. One that allows for ideas from anyone in a structured open way that can then be presented to the public. This opens up our whole governance to everyone and genuinely allows experts and others to set out how to tackle problems. For example a petition to "simplify the tax system" gets enough signatures, proposals for such would likely be sent in by economists, universities or dedicated groups. The key being the public can then choose which is used - not a government, cabinet or even prime minister. The people are the ones who have to live with the changes so are best suited to choose while we get the benefit of the experts and interested persons putting forward the solutions.
Final vote:
The final vote is to be sure that people really do want this change. If perhaps none of the proposals were satisfactory instead of being stuck with the least bad option they can choose "no change". The result either way will give a minimum percent of 50 so nothing goes through without support from a significant portion of the population.
Golden Rules
This is not a full Constitution or Bill of Rights because Enact voters can if they wish, create those using the voting system. They are laws that provide extra protection in areas that make either certain groups or the system itself vulnerable to direct voting.
Golden Rule - Tyranny from Minorities
Tyranny of the majority by a minority means that if any small number of people have a disproportionate say they are able to influence or even completely decide what happens with little or no regard for what the majority would like. The most extreme example would be a dictatorship where just one person can decide everything. A minority could be literally any group that has fewer numbers such as cyclists compared to motorists.
This minority can be inside a government, a powerful individual outside government, a subset of the population or anybody with influence over politicians. The Enact voting system takes care of all but one of these. The ‘subset of the population’ minority needs an extra measure on top the system.
Individually we are very interested in some subjects and not at all in others. If left with only a personal motivation to vote on each subject the turnout and people voting on each would fluctuate massively and the views of minorities would potentially dictate policy to the majority. While initially that could sound like a good thing Enact is about getting the best result for the most people. Those very interested in a subject may not have the interests of everyone in mind. Or perhaps things that most people don't want could get through in areas that are important but quite boring because people don't bother voting.
To protect the majority from these it is essential that the turnout is as high as feasible. The more people that vote the clearer picture of what the majority would like becomes.
While we do not want to make Enact fully compulsory there needs to be motivations in place other than just "doing your bit" not only to protect the majority but also the integrity of the voting system. The Enact final vote always has a "no" option this would be the "I'm not happy with it" choice.
Golden Rule - Tyranny from The Majority
Tyranny of a minority by the majority. The individual is the smallest minority and as we are all different we need to be sure that each of us is protected.
A policy that seeks to purposely discriminate against a UK citizen, based on a person's appearance, age, beliefs, wealth, origin, social position, race, ethnicity or other characteristics such as bodily autonomy and choice, will not be admitted to create a petition. While policy does often work better for some than others it is the purposeful intention to target because of an individual's differences that would not be permitted.
Golden Rule - Coercion
A major concern that comes up frequently is media influence and that it will seek to manipulate voters. This is becoming a bigger problem with online social sites because people get much of their news from them and sometimes from only one source.
To counter this Enact will create a new law stipulating that "it is illegal for media, government, business or charities to coerce voters for or against a policy. This includes coercion by omission, banning, manipulation of content, comments as well as offline influences such as loss of work due to not supporting x or y vote.
A new regulator will be set up to monitor and investigate complaints with the public being encouraged to report. Any breaches will incur heavy fines for each separate transgression. Disciplinary action would be taken if the breach was from a government department or body.
This will still allow media and the public to discuss, report on and work through any ideas and have a healthy debate.