Lessons from the Assisted Dying Debate
Democracy in Action?
This week, MPs held a significant vote on assisted dying, one of the most ethically complex issues in recent memory. Rupert Lowe MP for Great Yarmouth took the unusual step of polling his constituents before casting his vote. Among 1,181 participants, 892 supported assisted dying, and Lowe followed their majority view.
While Lowe’s effort reflects a commitment to listening, it raises questions about methodology, balance, and nuance. Were all voices heard, or just the loudest? Did moderates and less vocal constituents get drowned out? If the vote wasn’t anonymous, how many felt pressured to align with public opinion rather than their personal beliefs? Where was this poll posted – on Facebook?
The Free Vote and Its Limits
The assisted dying vote was a “free vote,” allowing MPs to act independently rather than under party instruction. Free votes are designed for issues of conscience.
Lowe’s poll is an example of good intentions but limited execution. It likely attracted only the most passionate voices, leaving out those who were undecided or disengaged. The collective wisdom and will of his constituency remain unknown.
The Times columnist, Matthew Syed, explains in his excellent book Rebel Ideas the phenomenon through a famous “count the jellybean” experiment. When guesses about a jar’s contents are anonymous, the median is often remarkably accurate. When other people’s guesses are visible, the results skew further from the reality.
Democracy, like this jellybean experiment, benefits from anonymity and independence—key principles woven into the DNA of Suffrago. Opinion polls, like the many which predicted a Kamala Harris, are often wrong because people frequently don’t tell the truth to pollsters.
How Suffrago Elevates Constituency Voices
At Suffrago, co-founded with data scientist Dr. Simon Wallace, we aim to modernise how MPs connect with their communities. By combining advanced data analysis with AI-powered tools, we offer a more scientific and nuanced approach to constituency engagement:
Anonymity for Honesty: Our platform ensures constituents can vote and share feedback without fear of judgment. This creates a safe space for genuine opinions. Tribalism doesn’t work on Suffrago.
Engaging Moderates: Passionate voices dominate debates, but we work to amplify quieter perspectives, ensuring MPs hear from a broader range of constituents.
Consensus, Not Division: We highlight areas of agreement and disagreement, helping MPs identify actionable solutions rather than binary divisions.
Data-Driven Context: We provide MPs with constituency-specific insights across areas like housing, health, income, and education. Unlike single-issue polls, we contextualise opinions with real-world data to support informed decisions.
Reimagining Democracy
Rupert Lowe’s initiative was well-intentioned, but democracy demands more than good intentions—it requires robust, representative methods. Anonymity, nuanced data, and consensus-building aren’t just ideals; they’re essential tools for modern governance. And accurate data is a prerequisite for making better decisions.