Reply to comment

I do agree with a number of the comments already posted - an existing interest in democracy increased my motivation to take part, and yes it was a little long winded. However, I am not sure that the process could have been streamlined very much more - the fact that the proposals had to be refined as part of the process increased both the complexity and effectiveness of the process.

The next question is about its widespread use...
- the complexity suggests that it is not really suitable for use with an entire population;
- the fact that only highly motivated people manage to complete the voting process suggests a risk of a ballot being dominated by interest or pressure groups;
- perhaps the dreaded focus groups would be able to make highly effective use of the process, improving their effectiveness;
- it would be a good way to engage interest groups in exploring opinions and approaches.

{Ed. In many instances, the preferendum would be very appropriate. Take, for example, the 2003 debate on reforming the House of Lords when there were five options 'on the table': all elected, 80/20, 50/50, 20/80 and all appointed.
Or take the infamous debate on poll tax when again there were (probably) five options 'on the (non-existant) table': the Tory (poll tax), the (Labour) property tax, the (Lib-Dem) local income tax, the (Green) land tax, and the status quo.
Or the 1997 Scottish and Welsh referendums, when the independence option might also have been on the ballot papers.
Or to-day's (1st April) debate on detention powers: it does not have to be 90 days yes-or-no, or 42 days, or 28 days, or whatever, yes-or-no. This too is obviously a multi-option question. So, have the debate, draw up a short list of options, and then vote.
Our own exercise was indeed pretty complex. In real life, however, there are numerous occasions when a form of multi-option voting would actually be the sensible way to proceed. Peter Emerson.}