Comments on: The United Independents

By: william

william — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 18:45:38 +0000

I have considered the viewpoints you express. We currently do not elect MPS that can boast any particular aptitude in any policy area. At best we vote for MPS for their affiliation to a party leader we think represents our views or have a good bunch of advisors.

This United Independents is essentially a work-around. The current system is build for representitive democracy but the views of the people are never expressed. What you may like on social policy in one party, may be balanced against a foreign policy you hold as repugnant.

Each riding office could publish the running poll status on an issue. Those registered to vote in the riding would all have a chance to vote and I believe many would if the process was made easy nad multiple voting platforms were made available (internet, mail, phone, in person). The goal is not “perfect government policy” the goal is accuratly representing the views of the constituents.

I hope I can make a post out of these comments alone. Keep em coming!

By: jocelyn

jocelyn — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 09:00:54 +0000

I think what Paul thinks too… but less developed and more biological.
Particularly when it comes to delicate matters that are contentious, such as assisted suicide or gay marriage or when life is really alive, I think it pays to have people with some expertise behind the votes.
I like your system, Will, but the one main weakness I see is what epidemiologists call the “patient bias.” It’s the sickest/loudest/most opinionated that get their voices heard, not necessarily the majority - and even if they are strong in numbers, there are many issues about which the majority doesn’t know enough to vote on in an educated fashion.
For example - Stem cell research.
Enter Rush Limbaugh.

By: Paul

Paul — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 08:53:39 +0000

To quote Edmund Burke:

“Your representative owes you not only his industry but his judgment. He betrays rather than serving you if he sacrifices his judgment to your opinion.”

One of the finest benefits of the admittedly imperfect system we call representative democracy is that, at its best, it allows us to select people who are smarter than us to create innovative solutions that we might not have thought of. We pay them to educate themselves about policy problems with all the time and energy at their disposal, not merely so that they can mirror our opinions, but so that they can develop expert opinions of their own.

This new system seems to me to be good old-fashioned direct democracy, but with an additional layer of representation in between that might not add much. We still end up with the key problems of direct democracy, namely “How do we make all the people devote 16 hours a day to participating in politics” and “Do we really want Joe Schmo to decide our positions on medical research, greenhouse gases, and war policy - if he’s not an expert in any of these fields himself?”

OK, I’ll stop babbling and save any more rhetorical ammunition for future rounds in this debate.