The Information Revolution
We are on the verge of a massive paradigm shift with regard to how we author and share information. The days of mass media are rapidly being replaced by social media. The question is how far are we willing to take it?
Coincidentally we are also in a period of unrest principally bought around by a failing of economic structures which are based upon nothing more than perception that we are no longer able to sustain. Historically this would have led to civil unrest followed by war, which would in itself have artificially refuelled the economic machine.
Unfortunately (or should I say fortunately), ever since America dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, world war is no longer an option. But there is still a groundswell of pressure, with no release valve in sight.
Or is there?
The Information Revolution has impacted upon almost every area of our lives, giving us the freedom to express views on almost any subject simply by clicking a 'like' button and yet in reality the real seat of power remains unaffected.
We 'vote' in elections often for one man or woman who we don't really know who represents a party with a manifesto - some of which we subscribe to, other parts we don't. And while we are busy 'liking' things in the make-believe world of the internet we have handed our real power over to these so called representatives. If you have ever watched Prime Minister's Questions you will know that this is no more than a farce of schoolboy rhetoric played out against an elegant backdrop.
A while ago I posted an article titled None Of The Above in which I described my frustration with the current electoral system in not allowing true free choice to voters in this country. There is no option to vote for none of the candidates in the election. Essentially, at the moment, you either vote for one of them or you are branded as too lazy to vote.
The argument against the ability to vote for none of the above is a simple one. What happens if the majority vote for it?
Then clearly people are not satisfied with their current options. But there are no other options at the moment.
In a true democracy, I would be able to 'vote' in favour of every single aspect of politics that affects my life, not some vague representation that is tied to a partisan view. On the internet I am able to represent my views in a much more clear and specific way than in parliament. That is a nonsense.
A vote for none of the above is a vote against the middle man, who is in truth unnecessary in this day and age anyway.
So what do we need? Perhaps something as radical as a candidate in each seat who stands for open access to governance - who's manifesto states nothing other than they will work toward true representation on every issue by means of the internet. We are the commons, we deserve to have our views heard in the House of Commons as individuals. In the Information Revolution, granting us that right should be an aspiration and not something to be feared.
