• Mainly about engagement and collaboration using social media and events, with some asides on living in London. More about David Wilcox and also how the blog started.
  • Search


« What Web 2.0 means for nonprofits | Main | Spin kills trust »


Hi David,

Glad you picked this up, but it was by my colleague Dan Dixon, not me.


Lee - thanks. Made the change, and look forward to more from Dan and the rest of the Headshift talent pool!

"Democracy is not the most efficient way to make a decision, if e-Democracy was there to make things more efficient the first thing to do would be get rid of the democracy bit."

I'm a bit baffled by that one. If I were hungry, and wanted to eat something, my 'efficient' decision process could be...

a) Look around for something edible (e.g. my own hand)
b) Eat it

There is the question of the quality of decision being made. And there, I'd suggest that REPRESENTATIVE democracy is the most efficient way of making a decision that is likely to get consent from most of the people, most of the time.

It is also most likely to result in a decision that people will be prepared to defend in the medium / long term.

It's only the rather odd tendency of people who have started discussing democracy now that it has an 'e' in front of it to assume that it should mean direct democracy that makes the whole thing inefficient.

The comments to this entry are closed.