The People's Politician television programme telling the story of the experiment was shown on BBC 2 on 18 March. This blog is now closed. We would like to thank all of you who have visited the blog or posted comments here.
"No sooner has she joined and she's left!" says Claire Martin on Twitter. Ann Widdecombe's time as a twitterer/blogger/technophile is over.
The experiment has finished and what Ann describes as the "shrug" of the electorate has shown itself in full force.
Because people don't see a big difference between the major parties, she says, and because of the perception that the public cannot change anything significantly, the overriding feeling throughout the experiment has been similar to the apathy seen widely about MPs and politics in general.
"It's the one thing that politicians cannot counter," says Ann. What she means is that there is no opposing view to apathy and no way to engage these people. They are neither for nor against anything and so cannot be drawn on any given issue.
Outside election time, it can appear difficult to change things directly and quickly in a representative democracy. Ann herself says that "people don't get involved because they think politicians have made up their mind [on a certain issue]."
Douglas Carswell (see previous post) says the reason that people did not really participate is because there was nothing for the public to change.
Perhaps then, the shrug could come from a lack of desire to engage under the terms politics currently operates under, the idea of "business as usual" and the way information about MPs is available to voters. With the time constraints on modern life, fewer people have the time to engage with politics in its traditional forms.
"Public meetings are not what they were," says Ann, referring to the relatively low turnout at the public meeting organised last week.
But public debates have already begun the move from County Halls and coffee mornings to social media, from constituency offices to the blogosphere. Questions are asked and answered online at all times of the day.
Is it a true test of technology to write 285 words in her three weeks as a blogger? Is it really a fair experiment if she only tweeted 13 times?
"[Ann Widdecombe] didn't really get Twitter, did she? I guess you can't force these things: either people are into [web 2.0] or not," said Nadine Hengen on Twitter.
Becky Walker, also on Twitter, was not so forgiving and simply tweeted: "Wow, epic fail."
Social media is a conversation. Without something to argue about and without something even to shrug their shoulders at, constituents and the wider population could not disagree and engage with Ann.
There was no online discussion because there was so very little to discuss or debate. The thousands of visits to the site ended with negligible interaction.
But, if people were genuinely interested, all Ann's views on policy issues are public and, if desired, available on sites such as They Work For You and she is more than happy to make her constituents aware of any decision she is making before she votes on it.
Eventually, politicians are likely to move their policy discussions online because surgeries and public meetings feel so old-fashioned. No-one will sit on plush chairs, sip wine and nibble on snacks in a few years time. Very few people do now.
But perhaps the real epiphany will come when the majority of Westminster realises that the real debate is already going on online without them.
What we have found in our own experiment is that people seem to only engage on what they really care about - what really affects them and those around them.
What might have helped, as Douglas Carswell suggests, is if people were given the opportunity to engage on their own terms, in their own time.
Perhaps then at least people would be given a real choice as to whether they give a shrug or not.
"The real tragedy as an MP is that people elected [to the Houses of Parliament] don't have real power over things... [they] have become mouthpieces for the bureaucracy."
Douglas Carswell, Conservative MP for Harwich and Clacton, does not mince his words. The programme team sat with him in Parliament Square as he talked about why, in his view, "there's something deeply rotten with our political system".
The problem is, he believes, because of the amount of safe seats in the House of Commons - only 10% changed party allegiance at the last election - politicians have been more than happy to hand over power to unelected quangos, diminishing any power that MPs had to influence things.
Because of this, Carswell is a big advocate of direct democracy. The idea of making politicians more accountable, which "some politicians are not going to like", is something that Carswell believes is inevitable.
Taking the initiative away from Whitehall and giving it to the people is something that he believes will change politics both fundamentally and for the better.
While this might sound like an MP calling for the death of MPs, he says that it "is not to do away with Parliament, it's to actually make Parliament more relevant and do its job better".
He admits his ideas were seen as "outrageous" by most MPs, but following the expenses scandal he believes that there is a place in politics for the move towards choice.
"Where you give people real choice and the ability to affect real outcomes, far from apathy - you get mass participation," he says.
The last decade - away from politics - has been defined by these choices. People carry around 10,000 songs in their pocket, have access to hundreds of television channels and pick and choose from a seemingly endless number of news sources.
When it comes to picking a political party, the three main parties account for over 90% of those MPs elected. Each of these MPs agrees - at least in principle - to the ideas of their party and will vote accordingly.
This "like it or lump it system of democracy", as Carswell calls it, goes against the "niche choices" that modern Britain is used to making.
To demonstrate this, he has written the Great Repeal Bill with the input of anyone wanting to get involved. It is, in its own words, "intended to abolish many restrictive laws and regulations believed to hamper individual freedoms".
Yet, he says, under the current rules it would be very difficult to get this bill through into law.
So what's the point?
"Sooner or later, as the appetite for direct democracy grows, there will come a time when these ideas are put forward.
"It's our democracy, we should be able to have a say in what [MPs] talk about."