I first got involved with the original Power Inquiry back in 2005, after hearing Helena Kennedy on Radio 4.  After 25 years of wasted voting in elections, I thought this was actually a chance to change something.

I made my submission, went to a few events and even attended the report publication party.

Though some of the events were innovative, most followed the tired old "Question Time" format of a panel of "experts" in front of a disparate group of people, each with their own axe to grind who usually went away at least as frustrated as when they came in.

Most of the people on the platform were politicians, party activists and students, with a fair smattering of "celebs" thrown in, presumably to attract the media.

The final report was disappointing, and not surprisingly, has had no noticeable impact on politics.  In fact, if anything, things got worse.

So now it's happening again in the shape of POWER2010. And what is the chance of the outcome being any different?

We are now being asked to sign up to a set of disconnected proposals, which may change politics, but would not improve democracy. 

The piecemeal approach presents an opportunity for politicians to cherry-pick and manipulate those ideas that, if adopted, would not seriously derail the gravy train, or just to ignore the outcome altogether.

What's needed is to focus on principal rather than detail, root cause rather than symptom, fundamental redesign rather than bodge-job repair.

You can't do that by committee, focus-group or X-Factor style public vote.

You can't design a complex system like a constitution by pick-and-mix.

At the root of the problem seems to be the assumption that all that democracy is all about voting.  It isn't.  You need strong leadership, good ideas and effective communication as a basis for the vote.