Here's something I heard on the radio a while back which has been kind of ticklingnthe back of my brain while reading the discussion here...
...and there's an associated paper here...
Evidence based politics anyone?
If we can objectively measure and compare how succesful politicians are at implementing the policies they promote and how effective those policies are in terms of their declared aims then make the results available to the voters in an accesible form then I'd say that was a step in the right direction...
]]>The hard part (but not terribly hard if you have a rich OR motivated group is getting enough signatures from eligible voters.
]]>So you want a revolution? How about we give the vote to children?
Invert the franchise. Grant the vote to youth, on a bell curve of weighting so younger children begin voting on less important issues, or with a reduced percentage, gradually increasing until one reaches his full voting power at the age where mental faculties and idealism are at the highest point, and then gradually reduce the weight of the vote until corrupt, disenchanted, cynical adults are completely removed from the vote.
Yes, yes, crazy I know but the more I think about it the more appealing it becomes. Think of the knock on effects on education. People would try to use demography to affect the vote, but they do that already, only now children's indoctrination would be in the limelight, and closely scrutinized.
And funding for education? Critical thinking skills? The infantilization of young adults and teenagers, reversed. Politics demistified by the necessity to explain issues in a format comprehensible to a 12 year old.
Children of course are genuinely idealistic and compassionate, mentally flexible and open minded, naturally aligned with the underdog since they too are powerless and under authority in their daily lives.
And finally, what long term policies could be instituted by a voting constituency that genuinely believes it's going to live forever?
Crazy eh? But don't tell me there isn't something there.
]]>Creating a new law that way doesn't just let you do an end run round the legislature, but also round the lobbyists!
]]>Not really. Anytime a measure seems to have enough support to pass EVERYONE with skin in the game starts spending money fast to either support or oppose the measure.
]]>1) Unusually few signatures are required (vs other similar systems in the US), so getting the signatures is actually not very hard for a large organized group or anyone with a few million dollars.
2) The constitution can be modified by a single simple majority vote (provided such modifications aren't considered "revisions" by the courts, which is horribly vague). That's just too quick and easy. The legislature can't undo such constitutional changes nearly so easily so if they are broken.
3) The legislature may never repeal or modify a measure without a popular vote.
4) Ballot measures can come in off-time elections where turnout is even lower than normal.
I think the system in Washington state works a lot better.
1) It requires relatively more signatures, so there aren't so many measures by random groups and people (one guy has made a career of starting up tax revolt style initiatives).
2) The constitution cannot be changed by initiative.
3) The legislature can't mess with them without a 2/3 vote for 2 years after which they are like any other law (so 50%+1 to repeal/modify/etc). There are initiatives which have been repeatedly passed and which the legislature flouts as soon as they expire. These initiatives are also dumb policy, IMO, so the system is working.
4) Same issue exists.
California popular-voted itself into a situation where the legislative majority had very little power to govern the state and the popular vote process is a very bad one for weighing and deciding between competing priorities.
California may be starting to turn this around, however. The legislature can now (as of a couple years ago I believe) approve a budget with a majority vote (rather than 2/3), though it still can't raise taxes, and some large fraction of the budget is off limits due to initiative mandated spending. The courts have begun to take a more limited view of what initiatives are legal and what constitutional changes can be accomplished via popular vote.
Oh, and to those who think initiatives get past lobbiests... hah. California ballots almost always have a measure or two written by a single corporation or person to benefit them very specifically. There are also regularly initiatives spawned out of national political organizations. The marketing campaigns for plausibly successful initiatives usually spend quite a few millions. That money means political professionals and lobbiests are involved.
]]>Representative democracy is all very singular.
]]>I'll give an example in a hypothetical US State. The state of Coronado has 5 members of congress assigned to it based on the Census. After the census, the state government divides the state up into 5 geographical districts, only having to ensure that the populations of the districts (also according to addresses on the census) are equal. These districts remain in effect until the next census, ten years later. If you move into the state and register to vote, you give your address, and that is the district in which your vote is counted, in which your polling place is, and whose electoral races you have a voice in.
However, there is no reason a state would really HAVE TO force individuals to register based on physical address. Why couldn't they allow residents of the state to register in another district if they were willing to travel there to vote? In large states, the special interest groups would game this system, telling members where to vote, not just who to vote for. So, if your main interest is Global Warming, and you lived in a large state, there might be somebody running in one of the races whose main interest is Global Warming. Your organization of like minded people would make it known that that person was technically running in district 9, say, and that all of his or her supporters should register in District 9 to ensure the election of a representative for their cause. Self gerrymandering.
An even better, but less probable, system would be to have a threshold system, as I described up above. Basically it would be like getting signatures on a petition. Get a hundred thousand registered supporters and you get a seat in congress. An individual can only support one candidate at a time, so if you want to vote for someone else, you have to go down to the perpetually open "Voting Office" and change your support from your old favorite to your new one. Thus politicians would constantly be getting put in and out of office--no scheduled elections, since they are constantly ongoing, and no terms of office at all. Any group with enough people would be able to have a representative voice.
]]>This isn't as insidious as it sounds, since their professed ideology identifies the interests of all property-holders, whether someone who owns but a rude hut, waistcoat, and matchlock or William Gates III. That is to say, they are proud to be tools of the wealthy, as the wealthy have proved their worth as leaders by being so. In the society they want, in which almost all decisions will be made by the Market, the wealthy would have even more power, so doing as the wealthy will hastens the Kingdom both as a goal and also by its very practice.
(There are Tea Partiers who believe that the U.S. has veered so far from the True Knowledge that you can't even trust rich persons who aren't named 'Soros', [and in a better world would come out the other side into Left Anarchism]...guess who doesn't get a lot of money thrown at them.)
]]>Of course living in the US you do realize that you really vote in multiple districts. Local (sometimes several), state, federal. Your system would get to be a bit crazy unless totally virtual/online.
]]>