Sun 5 Nov 2006
United Indies and Public Participation
Posted by william under Direct Representative Democracy , Politics & World , Social MusingHey,
Thanks Joss for that last comment. I too am stunned by the small amount of people that are willing to get informed and participate - or even form opinions- on political issues and current events. I can’t help but think however that a riding represented by a “mercenary MP” would get supercharged with participation. Not all issues are important to all people, like stem cell research; maybe a hard core environmentalist or tax reform person would not really care, but those who did care would be way more likely to make their voices heard. And for once, their voices would matter.
Under the circumstances, lets say only 5% or registered voters cared enough to make their views heard on an important issue. With a riding office making information known and urging people to register their opinions, this rises to, lets say 10%. Add those who then “vote” just because they know others with opposing views will (15%) and another portion just for sugar and giggles and you have 20%.
Some issues will not have a big turnout, some will have more. Lots of people may have views or not but the willingness to register one’s views is a low enough bar to determine who is and who is not a stakeholder in any particular issue. If it meant that much to them, they would have given their opinion. I think the kind of turn out you would get with this process would be enough to form a sample of the ridings electorate as a whole. I do stand behind the sampling idea on this. But it is not just about the sampling. It is more like saying “60% of the riding’s voters who were informed and gave a damn, would vote XYZ.”
As for the lack of telephones and other statistical hurdles, while it is a problem for social research, it is not a problem for excercising franchise. The participation is from registered voters. There is a list and the list is verifiable and updatable. Where the list is a bad list, ths process would clean it up. Voters could “vote” via phone, internet, inperson, mail and each vote would be manually and electronically verified to the voter.
On the subject of the Tyranny of the Majority (thank you John Stewart….Mill) I have to say that our system of government already provides it’s citizens with a social contract that makes the Tyranny of the Majority idea impossible. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms means if a riding votes 100% to bar Athiests or Japanese people or Baptists from public office (or etc) it simply does not have the power to override the charter.
The more I talk about it the more I like it. Check out the next post…
I like the train of thought, but as the consummate naysayer I must add one point here. Governments run according to this sort of semi-direct democracy face a crippling problem: taxation. In California, for example, where most tax policy changes go to a direct ballot, it has proven effectively impossible to raise taxes, no matter how badly the money is needed. The result has been brutal budget problems and a staggering inability to fund necessary services. No matter how well-intentioned, voters seem to find it more or less impossible to vote to raise their own taxes, no matter the circumstances. Any suggestions on how to work around this?