Direct Democracy Party Info

pokies100 says

December 5, 2015 at 8:09 PM

I'.G'. Wrote from New Zealand

"Direct democracy is problematic. Fundamentally, the typical voter does not have sufficient inclination, ability and time to become sufficiently expert in all the issues and activities of government.

This same limitation is manifest in many other aspects of life. Few people feel able to be their own mechanic, lawyer, doctor, plumber, dentist, etc. Most people recognize that they need the services of subject matter experts to make decisions and perform challenging tasks for them. There are a few who will do such things for themselves and some of these even do them very well, but they are a small minority.

Much of what government does requires expertise that comes from dedicated study and practice. Negotiating treaties, establishing budgets and writing legislation are not easily done well. The typical voter would not do them well. Even if others write the legislation, the typical voter would not understand all the implications of what was written or the context of it to reliably determine what was in their best interest.

No one suggests that a single doctor can provide all the medical services one might ever need. One sees specialists, according to need. Similarly for the building traders. There are not simply builders. There are electricians, plumbers, carpenters, masons, welders and many other specialists.

No one suggests that anyone can be a doctor, lawyer, electrician or any other of the trades or professions requiring expertise and experience.

Yet, when it comes to government, the common 'democratic' systems allow almost anyone to become a legislator, with only a few excluded from this possibility. It is generally sufficient not to be a criminal or foreigner. One might argue that the voters, ultimately, determine the requirements.

Most professions and trades are regulated. There are requirements of education and experience for those wanting to practice them and there is ongoing review of performance and disbarment from them for those who prove to be unfit. But when it comes to politics, short of being a criminal in jail, there are almost no exclusions. The popular media is sensationalist and motivated by profit or the agendas of owners. The media does not, typically, exercise fair, rational evaluation of performance or politicians. No body does.

One might consider that the quality of politicians elected is the best evidence that direct democracy is doomed to failure due to the poor decision making abilities of the majority of voters.

When the vast majority of voters are dissatisfied with the actions of government and those elected, there are only a few possibilities.

One is that there is such diversity of opinion among the people that only a small percentage can be satisfied by any course of action: that no course of action would satisfy more than a very small minority. This might well be the case for many issues. We live in a very diverse society. A government that satisfies the majority might be an impossibility, due to this diversity.

However, on some issues there is relatively little diversity of opinion and there is the possibility of government satisfying the majority. In these cases, if the majority are not satisfied, then the system of government is not democratic. It seems this is increasingly the case in many countries.

One limitation of the common electoral systems is the coarseness of the electoral systems. One gets to vote only occasionally and for only a small number of representatives who handle a great diversity of issues. In many countries, the only segregation of the electoral / governmental process is between local and regional issues. Imagine if one had to choose a single individual to be doctor, dentist, plumber, mechanic and teacher. It would be difficult to find an individual who did all these things satisfactorily. Yet the common electoral systems assume that it is possible to select individuals who can handle a similarly diverse range of issues satisfactorily.

Rather than direct democracy what is needed is a system which allows people to select representatives for dealing with different aspects of government independently. There should be more divisions than merely local and regional. Ones choice of representatives need not be fixed for years at a time, unable to be changed despite experience and the performance of the currently selected representative. One should be able to change one's proxy at any time. There is no need for election cycles, which are prone to fraud and propaganda, and often trivialize issues.

What should the divisions of the government be, if not merely local and regional? We have some good guidance already. Most governments assign individuals to various portfolios. There are budget ministers, health ministers, education ministers, etc. A start would be to allow the electorate to assign their votes, by proxy, to different individuals for each of these roles, rather than to one individual for all of them. With experience, the divisions could be refined.

Perhaps an incremental approach would be best.

First step might be the option to choose a single representative in each of the current jurisdictions (or even just one of them) by proxy rather than by first past the post election. Thus several individuals would be 'elected', each with a different weight. No party would be sidelined until the next election, but each would have a different weight and authority in the casting of votes. Some 'proportional' systems do this, to a degree, but ultimately the vote of each member of the government is the same. In a proxy system, the weight of each member's vote would be different, according to how many of the electorate assigned their proxy rights to that individual.

A next step might be to eliminate the election cycles by allowing the electorate to re-select their proxy at any time.

Then one might proceed to allow independent selection of representatives for other divisions than geographic. Some jurisdictions allow separate election of general legislators and presidents already. Imagine separate elections for finance ministers, education ministers and health ministers. Divisions could be introduced gradually.

Such a system is feasible with modern technology. Many private companies make critical decisions by proxy systems already, with different meetings called to address different issues, so that shareholders can assign select different proxies for each issue.

Such a system could maintain the advantage of representatives who are more expert and dedicated to their field than the average elector.

Such a system might achieve a higher degree of satisfaction and a more prompt removal of unsatisfactory representatives.

Current first past the post party systems fail to satisfy the electorate for well known reasons. Proportional systems are only a slight improvement because each representative has either no vote or the same vote as any other – not really very proportional. A full proxy system would allow much more proportional representation of the diversity of interests among the electorate. Each representative would cast the votes of some number of the electorate: not just one vote. Some representatives might cast a few thousand votes. Others might cast hundreds of thousands of votes. The will of the people would be more directly and proportionally expressed, yet through representatives who could be relatively experienced in what they are doing.

One need not be excluded from influencing the selection of president or prime minister or finance minister or minister of war merely because the candidates for those positions are running in some other riding. That a tiny minority of the electorate choose our finance minister is really quite absurd, if you think about it, and quite unnecessary.

In summary, to answer your question: no – direct democracy is not like the proxy system I have suggested. I think a proxy system would be better because it does not exclude minority opinion. This is particularly important where there is great diversity of interest – where every opinion is in the minority. There are many issues which are not binary.

On 1/03/2015 8:29 a.m., Rod Young wrote:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eN8Hr45V3AY

Is this close to your proxy voting system?

Rod
Sent from my iPad
"

Comments

Jacopo Tolja says
December 5, 2015 at 6:02 PM

The plan is perfect and well thought, 500.000 dollars to develop the platform will even be sufficient. What about saving 500.000 from the plan and start with the party by using open source available web based platform? Start immediately and create a DDP group on http://www.airesis.us, Kind Regards from Italy where 17000 strong user base is beginning the peaceful revolution.

Gmodism Total Nerdery Channel says
December 5, 2015 at 6:09 PM

Great, now win!

JMan says
December 5, 2015 at 6:45 PM

You guys have 3 years to gain steam before the next midterm elections. I suggest you work closely with Wolf-PAC. They might endorse you and help you get the word out. Also, I don't think it needs to be a party. It could just be a movement.

Rhys Cooper says
December 5, 2015 at 7:09 PM

How can I set this up in Australia?

Lokoel David says
December 5, 2015 at 7:54 PM

Brilliant idea

pokies100 says
December 5, 2015 at 8:09 PM

I'.G'. Wrote from New Zealand

"Direct democracy is problematic. Fundamentally, the typical voter does not have sufficient inclination, ability and time to become sufficiently expert in all the issues and activities of government.

This same limitation is manifest in many other aspects of life. Few people feel able to be their own mechanic, lawyer, doctor, plumber, dentist, etc. Most people recognize that they need the services of subject matter experts to make decisions and perform challenging tasks for them. There are a few who will do such things for themselves and some of these even do them very well, but they are a small minority.

Much of what government does requires expertise that comes from dedicated study and practice. Negotiating treaties, establishing budgets and writing legislation are not easily done well. The typical voter would not do them well. Even if others write the legislation, the typical voter would not understand all the implications of what was written or the context of it to reliably determine what was in their best interest.

No one suggests that a single doctor can provide all the medical services one might ever need. One sees specialists, according to need. Similarly for the building traders. There are not simply builders. There are electricians, plumbers, carpenters, masons, welders and many other specialists.

No one suggests that anyone can be a doctor, lawyer, electrician or any other of the trades or professions requiring expertise and experience.

Yet, when it comes to government, the common 'democratic' systems allow almost anyone to become a legislator, with only a few excluded from this possibility. It is generally sufficient not to be a criminal or foreigner. One might argue that the voters, ultimately, determine the requirements.

Most professions and trades are regulated. There are requirements of education and experience for those wanting to practice them and there is ongoing review of performance and disbarment from them for those who prove to be unfit. But when it comes to politics, short of being a criminal in jail, there are almost no exclusions. The popular media is sensationalist and motivated by profit or the agendas of owners. The media does not, typically, exercise fair, rational evaluation of performance or politicians. No body does.

One might consider that the quality of politicians elected is the best evidence that direct democracy is doomed to failure due to the poor decision making abilities of the majority of voters.

When the vast majority of voters are dissatisfied with the actions of government and those elected, there are only a few possibilities.

One is that there is such diversity of opinion among the people that only a small percentage can be satisfied by any course of action: that no course of action would satisfy more than a very small minority. This might well be the case for many issues. We live in a very diverse society. A government that satisfies the majority might be an impossibility, due to this diversity.

However, on some issues there is relatively little diversity of opinion and there is the possibility of government satisfying the majority. In these cases, if the majority are not satisfied, then the system of government is not democratic. It seems this is increasingly the case in many countries.

One limitation of the common electoral systems is the coarseness of the electoral systems. One gets to vote only occasionally and for only a small number of representatives who handle a great diversity of issues. In many countries, the only segregation of the electoral / governmental process is between local and regional issues. Imagine if one had to choose a single individual to be doctor, dentist, plumber, mechanic and teacher. It would be difficult to find an individual who did all these things satisfactorily. Yet the common electoral systems assume that it is possible to select individuals who can handle a similarly diverse range of issues satisfactorily.

Rather than direct democracy what is needed is a system which allows people to select representatives for dealing with different aspects of government independently. There should be more divisions than merely local and regional. Ones choice of representatives need not be fixed for years at a time, unable to be changed despite experience and the performance of the currently selected representative. One should be able to change one's proxy at any time. There is no need for election cycles, which are prone to fraud and propaganda, and often trivialize issues.

What should the divisions of the government be, if not merely local and regional? We have some good guidance already. Most governments assign individuals to various portfolios. There are budget ministers, health ministers, education ministers, etc. A start would be to allow the electorate to assign their votes, by proxy, to different individuals for each of these roles, rather than to one individual for all of them. With experience, the divisions could be refined.

Perhaps an incremental approach would be best.

First step might be the option to choose a single representative in each of the current jurisdictions (or even just one of them) by proxy rather than by first past the post election. Thus several individuals would be 'elected', each with a different weight. No party would be sidelined until the next election, but each would have a different weight and authority in the casting of votes. Some 'proportional' systems do this, to a degree, but ultimately the vote of each member of the government is the same. In a proxy system, the weight of each member's vote would be different, according to how many of the electorate assigned their proxy rights to that individual.

A next step might be to eliminate the election cycles by allowing the electorate to re-select their proxy at any time.

Then one might proceed to allow independent selection of representatives for other divisions than geographic. Some jurisdictions allow separate election of general legislators and presidents already. Imagine separate elections for finance ministers, education ministers and health ministers. Divisions could be introduced gradually.

Such a system is feasible with modern technology. Many private companies make critical decisions by proxy systems already, with different meetings called to address different issues, so that shareholders can assign select different proxies for each issue.

Such a system could maintain the advantage of representatives who are more expert and dedicated to their field than the average elector.

Such a system might achieve a higher degree of satisfaction and a more prompt removal of unsatisfactory representatives.

Current first past the post party systems fail to satisfy the electorate for well known reasons. Proportional systems are only a slight improvement because each representative has either no vote or the same vote as any other – not really very proportional. A full proxy system would allow much more proportional representation of the diversity of interests among the electorate. Each representative would cast the votes of some number of the electorate: not just one vote. Some representatives might cast a few thousand votes. Others might cast hundreds of thousands of votes. The will of the people would be more directly and proportionally expressed, yet through representatives who could be relatively experienced in what they are doing.

One need not be excluded from influencing the selection of president or prime minister or finance minister or minister of war merely because the candidates for those positions are running in some other riding. That a tiny minority of the electorate choose our finance minister is really quite absurd, if you think about it, and quite unnecessary.

In summary, to answer your question: no – direct democracy is not like the proxy system I have suggested. I think a proxy system would be better because it does not exclude minority opinion. This is particularly important where there is great diversity of interest – where every opinion is in the minority. There are many issues which are not binary.

On 1/03/2015 8:29 a.m., Rod Young wrote:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eN8Hr45V3AY

Is this close to your proxy voting system?

Rod
Sent from my iPad
"

pokies100 says
December 5, 2015 at 8:35 PM

http://forums.aardvark.co.nz/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=195&p=2987#p2987

Part two of a good challenge

Direct Democracy Party Info

Related

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Share this:

Related

Reader Interactions

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply