Voting On Issues: Referendum Politics

[John Freestone]

I've often thought it would be good if we (the populace of a modern state) voted on issues, relatively often (even kind of continuously), instead of what we do now, which is every four or five years having an expensive and largely meaningless festival of lies, advertising and ego projection that goes by the name of democracy. The idea would be that the government becomes more executive in its remit, being legally accountable to put into practice the decisions made by the new Parliament (us).

I want to be more active in promoting this, or at least work out if it's got any legs, but I don't really know where to start. I'm not educated in politics and hardly even know what phrases such an idea might go by (I didn't invent it) so it's hard to find information on it. I imagine there must be at least one social-activist group furthering the cause. Any ideas? What is this thing called? Referendum Politics?

I'd be happy to discuss the subject here. That brief description might suggest all sorts of different schemes, so I'll flesh out my ideas a bit. I should say first that I don't see it as easy or without problems, just worth trying in some form compared to the charade we have now, and potentially extremely important in the political evolution of humanity.

On the pro side, I think we may be ready for it. I think we have suitable technology to hold on-line discussion everyone can take part in, and then hold referendums. The process might involve more complex decision-making structures where many details of a particular policy are hammered out over a period of time.

The method requires paying sufficient attention to discussing and ratifying the details of the political process itself, as distinct from the current social issues.

We might also be ready for it psychologically, too. Global economic crisis has dramatically emphasised the weaknesses of our current systems. These are based on handing over our individual responsibility for several years to a political party, giving them free rein, and thus, whenever we pretend we live in a democracy, we collude in the lie that they have any investment in representing us once elected.

Meanwhile, social activism is increasing fast, again thanks largely to the internet, and now we have the curious superposition of this - sometimes massively effective - political grass-roots power through campaigns outside the official system on top of the tardy self-interest of governments.

On the con side, of course, the big difficulty is making the change, both in terms of testing and tweaking and proving the concept and in overcoming the inertia of current systems - ultimately it involves a government bringing in electoral change to vastly disempower itself. While governments might pretend that they're our servants, they can't be expected to like the idea of actually becoming our servants. Perhaps these two forces will meet, in a mass movement to demand this new kind of executive government; in other words, they won't do it, we'll have to demand it.

A second big problem, perhaps, is that issues don't exist in a political vacuum in the real world. It's no use everyone voting for lower taxes in one referendum (cuz we like that idea) and more public spending (cuz that's a great idea, obviously). We can't spend the tax revenue on all our cherished causes, ban nuclear power and wind farms.... However, maybe we can devise a structured system that allows us to isolate really important issues that have overwhelming support and get them changed, without losing sight of balanced political values and aspirations.

Perhaps there will still be politicians (the executives) who devise and advertise their value system, but we just get to tell them what to do to fulfill that (or we vote them out in no time anyway).

Maybe it's a lost cause. I'm probably just a dreamer. But it's quite sickening to think that the current big issue on the subject of electoral reform in Britain is the dizzying extra representational power - and the responsibility that comes with it, don't forget - of not just putting one cross on the ballot paper next time, but putting a ranking, to include your second-least-mistrusted politician as well. This, when everyone accepts that it's always a two-horse race! It's painful, too, to think of how many issues most people would vote on that (IMHO) would end longstanding injustices and pass life-enhancing laws.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Look at how well it turned out in Cal. with tax caps.

Or in my area, where school funding never goes througfh because omg taxes are the satan.

And who controls the counting controls the votes. Look at the debate on the options for Scottish independence, and that is as simple a choice as you can get.

(Sorry, on a mobile and can't properly respond)

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

I don't have enough time to fully inform myself to run this country. I do try and periodically educate myself enough to pick someone and some party who will spend the time to do it for me sensibly.

 

[KoihimeNakamura]

Refrerendums are a horrible idea in pratice if you aren't careful.

 

[dudalb]

Government by Plebiscite sucks, frankly.
We have a small taste of it in California..and it is why California is in such a mess.
People will vote themselves Bread and Circuses, but then refuse to pay for them.
ANd if goes all the way with "the people" replacing parliamentary rule, I am going to get out of there fast. It will degenarate into Mob Rule very quickly.
And, frankly, how many people are going to spend the time and effort to study EVERY issue to make an intelligent decision. How many people in the US or the UK are really knowledgable to make a judgement on ,say,Foreign Affairs?
Bad,Bad, Idea.
ANd instant voting on complex issues??????????????

 

[EvilSmurf]

I much prefer a Republic/Representative Democracy to the model you suggest (which sounds like Direct Democracy). As the old saying goes "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner"

 

[Architect]

Referenda? In`a country where the Sun is the biggest selling paper? Educate themselves to vote on all key issues? Jings, crivens, help ma boab.

 

[DC]

well you know, referendum rock when done well.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Referenda? In`a country where the Sun is the biggest selling paper? Educate themselves to vote on all key issues? Jings, crivens, help ma boab.

I'm not in favour of them, but presumably you could use the same argument to argue against anyone voting for anything ever (Including at the general election).

I think it's about time people realised that Referendums are mostly just about parties avoiding dealing with unpopular decisions. "Hey, we didn't just vote for it, you did". In a sense, it could make political parties less accountable.

I laugh at how Osborne said the other day that the Tory party is about (When he was talking about the referendum on AV) 'giving people a say' rather than telling people what they are going to do. Yes, that must be why they gave us referendums on Nuclear Power stations, Afghanistan, the Death Penalty, the EU membership, the 2012 Olympics, Council Housing, putting the cast of Last of the Summer Wine in a rocket to the moon etc etc.

 

[Travis]

We've done this in California and it has turned out terrible. We vote on laws based purely on emotion and short term thinking and it has largely been for the worse.

 

[Fiona]

I would be interested to hear from those in countries which have a mechanism for a popular vote. I have been told that in some countries one can force a referendum on any issue but in order to do it one has to secure the support of quite a large percentage of the population (petition? I don't know how it is done). I understand it is quite difficult and it doesn't happen very often but it seems to me it might be a good compromise, because it might mean people would have to make the case in order to get enough people on side. To do it the way it has been described in another thread (relating to penal policy) or here as an addition to the ballot does not seem good to me for the reasons already outlined: though I do not know how those things get on the ballot either: is there a minimum level of support for the propostion required there too?

 

[DC]

I would be interested to hear from those in countries which have a mechanism for a popular vote. I have been told that in some countries one can force a referendum on any issue but in order to do it one has to secure the support of quite a large percentage of the population (petition? I don't know how it is done). I understand it is quite difficult and it doesn't happen very often but it seems to me it might be a good compromise, because it might mean people would have to make the case in order to get enough people on side. To do it the way it has been described in another thread (relating to penal policy) or here as an addition to the ballot does not seem good to me for the reasons already outlined: though I do not know how those things get on the ballot either: is there a minimum level of support for the propostion required there too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum#Switzerland

 

[Fiona]

Thanks DC. I see it says that citizen orginated referendums do not usually pass. I wonder if this means that people really do take time to inform themselves, because the turn out seem to be respectable at least as compared with local government elections in this country.

 

[John Freestone]

I don't have enough time to fully inform myself to run this country. I do try and periodically educate myself enough to pick someone and some party who will spend the time to do it for me sensibly.

I find it strange to argue that we aren't educated enough to be trusted with political responsibility, yet that we can, from this position of ignorance, judge who is knowledgable enough to do the job for us.

I don't think it's quite the rocket science they pretend it is, and they make a pretty shocking mess of it on our ignorant behalves. Not only that, they often make short-sighted, deeply immoral and probably illegal decisions on our behalf, ignoring popular opinion even when we're marching in protest against it, such as the Iraq Invasion. We'd have to try really hard to make a bigger arse of it on some issues.

However, I recognise the problem, and I think this process would only be worth trying if we also work to plug that education gap. AFAIK in most modern states children don't get any significant education on politics, either on the current workings of their own political system or on the fundamental issue - how do we make decisions and play fair? Not only would this help us take individual responsibility for directing politics in the country, it might also prepare the way for a more tolerant world generally.

Historically, certainly in Britain, we have a system where the lower classes were trained for production and commerce in state schools, while the upper classes went to Oxbridge and then some of them got into politics. I'm not sure that many of them actually have a clue, just as our experts in economics have brought us to the brink of world catastrophy.

 

[John Freestone]

Refrerendums are a horrible idea in pratice if you aren't careful.

A general rule can be worked out from this example, if you're careful.

 

[John Freestone]

Referenda? In`a country where the Sun is the biggest selling paper? Educate themselves to vote on all key issues? Jings, crivens, help ma boab.

Just maybe, if people had a way to discuss and formulate the actual policies of the area they lived in, they'd spend less time sucking Rupert Murdoch's butt. And I don't see it as having to educate ourselves on all key issues. What I imagine is that people would specialise and campaign on issues that they are interested and involved in. We have a particular understanding of what 'referendum' means, and it's not like that at all.

We could set up a Direct Democracy forum in a jiffy, on a "just pretending" basis, where people can go online and start formulating an alternative political direction for - wherever, Britain, say - even just as an experiment. Maybe there is one. The issues are likely to be so hotly contested that it should stimulate more discussion and learning, and tend to ameliorate radical tendencies, towards that wonderful future when we're ready to be politically responsible citizens instead of sheep.

 

[John Freestone]

Government by Plebiscite sucks, frankly.
We have a small taste of it in California..and it is why California is in such a mess.
People will vote themselves Bread and Circuses, but then refuse to pay for them.
ANd if goes all the way with "the people" replacing parliamentary rule, I am going to get out of there fast. It will degenarate into Mob Rule very quickly.
And, frankly, how many people are going to spend the time and effort to study EVERY issue to make an intelligent decision. How many people in the US or the UK are really knowledgable to make a judgement on ,say,Foreign Affairs?
Bad,Bad, Idea.
ANd instant voting on complex issues??????????????

This is about as far from my vision as you could get, but you do have a point. There has to be a method to counter our tendency to get 'bread and circuses' and not pay for it. I can't say I've got one, but what it makes me think of is this: one of the two biggest problems we have right now (economic crisis) is due to living outside our budget - individually and as countries - borrowing from the future (in fact, the other one, global warming, is probably a result of the same). It crashed. But some people don't live that way, they never get into debt, and if there's a solution to the above it has to be something to do with that. As I said in my first post, there are complexities of government, balances that need to be struck, and we can't spend money twice, so I wasn't advocating the system you're describing. Certainly I did not advocate instant voting on complex issues.

There might also be other reasons California is a mess, or California might be in a worse mess without the small taste of plebiscite you've had.

 

[dudalb]

I find it strange to argue that we aren't educated enough to be trusted with political responsibility, yet that we can, from this position of ignorance, judge who is knowledgable enough to do the job for us.

That is like saying we need a medical degree before we can choose a good doctor.
You have a hopelessly idealistic and very unrealistic view of how humans behave.
Your Vison needs a major change in perscription for your glasses, now.

 

[dudalb]

Just maybe, if people had a way to discuss and formulate the actual policies of the area they lived in, they'd spend less time sucking Rupert Murdoch's butt. And I don't see it as having to educate ourselves on all key issues. What I imagine is that people would specialise and campaign on issues that they are interested and involved in. We have a particular understanding of what 'referendum' means, and it's not like that at all.

We could set up a Direct Democracy forum in a jiffy, on a "just pretending" basis, where people can go online and start formulating an alternative political direction for - wherever, Britain, say - even just as an experiment. Maybe there is one. The issues are likely to be so hotly contested that it should stimulate more discussion and learning, and tend to ameliorate radical tendencies, towards that wonderful future when we're ready to be politically responsible citizens instead of sheep.

I don't know what planet you are living on but it sure is not Earth.
Someday you will discover something called Reality. It will not be fun experience as your castles in the air come tumbling down but you will be a sadder but wiser person for it.

 

[John Freestone]

Look at how well it turned out in Cal. with tax caps.

Or in my area, where school funding never goes througfh because omg taxes are the satan.

And who controls the counting controls the votes. Look at the debate on the options for Scottish independence, and that is as simple a choice as you can get.

(Sorry, on a mobile and can't properly respond)

I agree that's a very serious issue about who controls the counting, and the big questions about the methods. I wonder if anyone has got further with the problem. I touched on this by saying that part of the discussion and voting should include the process itself. Just as on a forum, for instance, there might be a competition, and users can vote for the winner, there might also be discussion and voting about who can vote, or how often the counting is done, etc. In Virtual Parliament everything would be up for discussion and change.

I know that's far from a good answer, and I also believe there's an absolutely fundamental point in there about who is in control of the system (and thus how we can avoid corruption). We must acknowledge, however, that this is a limitation of every type of democracy, and that makes me wonder whether it's fair to impute it to direct democracy, which might be more open and transparent. How do we know 'the Mods' are counting the votes right? Well, how do we know the Yanks counted them right when GW got into power?

Hope you get to say more when you're not on the phone (you won't be allowed to take part in my Utopia from a mobile, BTW).