Direct democracy? We have the technology!
 

All the talk about democracy got me thinking if our current system, representative democracy, might not be an outdated relic of another era.

When you think about it, democracy began as government for the people, by the people, but quickly evolved to representative democracy due to geographic and occupational constraints. All of the people living many km away from the agora (or Ottawa) couldn't easily travel there all the time for debates and votes, and even those in close proximity had fields or farm animals or other activities to attend to during the day.

And so we came to elect representatives who devoted themselves full-time (pretty much) to debating the issues and voting in our name.

But now that we have advanced technology that links the entire world all the time, and in light of the cynicism about politics and growing disengagement from the affairs of the polis (leaving them increasingly in the hands of the extremes), is there an opportunity to turn the whole thing upside down?

What if we as citizens were allowed to debate most things and vote on them directly? Perhaps a certain amount of reading and participation in debates would be required, and then all of the citizens who went to the trouble of getting involved (meeting minimum criteria) would get to vote?

I am not convinced that the average sitting MP is more knowledgeable on (or even interested in) issues X, Y and Z than the average SSPer is, for example.

Plus, let's not forget that our MPs are bound by party discipline most of the time, and as such often don't even vote according to the facts presented before them or the arguments put forth in debates.

Another thing is that the real experts on most issues are public servants, who take often very general policy orientations from the highest level politicians and run with them, and make them happen after a bit of tweaking from the political class.

I don't mean to disparage our MPs: it's an honourable job I'd love to have, but in the interest of making our society more democratic, I am not sure that a House full of 338 of them serves the public optimally.

:previous:

A thoughtful and provocative post for your 50,000th post. Congratulations! :)

I hadn't even noticed! :)

As to your question, I'm not sure direct democracy would work well.

1) - in direct democracy, where all issues are voted on by everyone, then who would the PM be? What would his responsibilities be? How would the cabinet be selected and the bureaucracy overseen?
2) - most people are not very well versed in the nuances of legislation or their potential consequences. They would be voting with their gut, and a lot of voters have indigestion. :)
3) - there is no art of compromise in direct democracy. Direct democracy is akin to mob rule, and is subject to mood swings and bad temper. Some very bad decisions can come out of direct democracy.

Sounds like an absolute bureaucratic nightmare destined for immediate confusion and failure.

Direct democracy feels like it would be a full-time job and I’ve already one of those. Tyranny of the majority also worries me, especially with an aging population whose priorities are the opposite of the legislative tools needed to attract young families.

It would be good for some things though. Regionalism here, for example. General guidelines are you need one PET scanner for every two million people. PEI doesn’t even have one, they share NS’s. We have one in St. John’s that is obviously not being used to capacity. This week Corner Brook residents are ready to storm our Confederation Building because they’re not getting one of their own for a city the size of Mount Pearl. Protests, letters. And it’s the seat of the current government’s power - even the Premier’s seat is out there. So with an election call coming soon, it’s become an even bigger issue and could cost them seats out there, the local residents are that pissed.

With direct democracy, they’re not getting a fucking PET scanner. With our current system, I’ll be shocked if they don’t. One for every two million. We’ll be paying for two for 500,000. Sometimes I wish the isthmus would collapse and Avalon was its own province :haha: I’d miss the Bonavista Peninsula, but not enough to keep the rest. The entitlement here is... insane. In St. John’s too, to be sure, but out around the bay? We’re still dealing with the impact of how Confederation was sold to them in the 40s. Our Terms of Union enshrine our right to re-establish our would-now-be-provincial Senate. We really should to have some “sober second thought” about economically detrimental decisions that aren’t in the province’s overall interest.

So, no to direct democracy please. I can’t be arsed to learn the right decision to every little question government has to answer, even if it would be good in some cases.

It's a nice idea. Something we could imagine in a utopian world but... I feel like that type of democracy would give too much voice/power to the loudest and extreme portion of the population, i.e. Trumpians. They already have too much exposure as is with social media and internet in general.

I can actually appreciate that concern, though in my grand plan I didn't envisage that this legislative process would be exempted from the oversight of something like the Supreme Court, in terms of the constitutionality of its decisions.

I still thought it would be.

The plan wouldn't necessarily be to get all Canadians to get involved in all legislation. Some (many?) would get involved in none. By choice or indifference.

There are obviously issues with 338 representing 37.59 million, but I don't think direct democracy is the solution. Doing away with parties would be one useful measure for me because there is too much voting along party lines right now which makes for less than useful debate on topics within government.

I just don't think it is fair for most people to get them to vote on issues that they may have little background knowledge and less than enough time to read up on it. Who is going to monitor the reading and participation and who is going to approve sources. If I get all of my information on carbon tax policy from the Western Alienation News I am probably ill-informed and you can't force people to read critically.

For thoughtful academics this concept is a no-brainer if everyone was a thoughtful academic, but a lot of the population is not.

I am not being judgemental as we're all products of our socialization and conditioning (including yours truly), but a lot of the comments here about how the people can't be entrusted with more power have been quite undemocratic when you think about it.

The truth is that the people we disagree with already have electoral power as it is, and as long as we're a democracy, or claim to be one, they still will.

One alternative as I alluded to in another thread is a benevolent philosopher king, as evoked by Plato long ago.

Devil's advocate: more than a few of elected officials today are either numbskulls or toadies for certain economic interests or special interest groups.

Would broadening the pool of "legislators" (for lack of a better term) necessarily thin out the depth chart?

I don't have a definitive answer to that.

"It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."
~Douglas Adams~

It's a good question. Right now getting into politics is easy, but being successful in getting in requires either good timing (think NDP candidate in Quebec that one election) or some cash to get your name and thoughts out there. Widening that field would at least give more voices. Quality of those voices is certainly subject to the same concerns we have now. I think my riding representative fits your toadie-numbskull description. I didn't vote for them and we had two other candidates that were pretty reasonable in my opinion.

I like the concept you propose. But I do feel that it is an unfair burden for a large segment of the populace that could potentially get even less representation on issues than they currently do.

It's admittedly just a mental exercise to spur some interesting discussion.

I don't really want to end up like Karl Marx who perhaps never intended for his ideas to get implemented, and have my face emblazoned on t-shirts 100 years from now and people damning my name because some people thought it was a good idea to foist my pie-in-the-sky plan upon one fifth of humanity! :haha:

Lol. How about Che Guevara?

There is one thing I do believe about political systems in general and that is that they all seem to work on paper, but once you add actual people, all bets are off.

This sums it up:

https://i0.wp.com/simonburrow.com/wp...size=640%2C301

Strangely enough, we see an example of a more democratic approach to our south. In every election, there's all sorts of weird propositions put to the people directly. "Vote Prop X for Cause Y."

So, one ends up with weird contradictions. In California, taxes are capped (by Proposition), but there's a whole bunch of mandatory spending (by Proposition). Nobody likes paying taxes, but everyone likes free handouts. So, California now has periodic financial crises where it can't raise funds but must legally keep spending, because Proposition X says the funds are mandatory.

It also runs contrary to the idea that a party can run on a platform. So, Party A releases a platform and gets elected, but it runs contrary to what the what the voters choose for Prop X. Who has the more legitimate claim to the course of action?

Then you have special interests who can game the system. Everybody likes a free lunch and you could sell your cause that way. Except that an in-depth analysis of issues isn't something our culture does very well - you'd end up with an endless barrage of political ads (see: country to south). We're not the Swiss, who have a seemingly better handle on that sort of thing.

Weirdly enough, I'd argue that we have a good system in balancing the need for government to get things done (even if they're not nice things) and presenting the options to the people.

So in summary: Newfoundland shouldn't have a PET scanner (let alone two), the one and only such device for the entirety of Atlantic Canada should be in Halifax. ;)

Potentially. The cost of getting off the island is so high that unless a procedure is extremely rare, it can make financial sense for us to provide it here. The math for flying to Halifax and getting a PET scan would be at least $2,200 per scan (just flight plus scan itself). Depending on the number we do, that cost could be high enough to justify one scanner on the island.

In theory everyone having the right to vote on many topics sounds great, but in practice would lead to stagnation, geographic bias, and very likely even easier voter manipulation.

I think it would look alot like the election scene in Gangs of New York. People who would otherwise not have participated in the electoral process being strong armed into it (or coerced by some other means). I know it happens now but at least with our system you can dump the bad politicians and vote in better ones (in theory). We could not however "vote out" the general population, or a segment of it, if they were found to be corrupted.

I do wish we could get rid of the party system.