[EM] non-binding direct democracy system

[James Green-Armytage]

Dear election methods fans,

	I propose the creation of a formal, federally funded, and yet legally
non-binding direct democracy system, in the US and in other countries. 
	That is, polling stations should be organized on a regular basis, perhaps
a few times per year. Voters would then have a chance to vote directly on
major policy issues. Although elected representatives would still retain
the option to act against the majority decision, there would be some
pressure to act in accordance with it. The stronger the majority and the
larger the turnout, the more weight the decision would carry.

	The frequency of voting is up for grabs, but I would suggest something
like three or four votes per year. The number of issues per ballot is also
up for grabs. For example, around ten issues per ballot seems reasonable.
	The system should incorporate a proxy system, and should ideally work
according to my direct democracy / proxy system proposal from October 22.
[http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2003-October/011100.html]
	The voting shouldn't be internet-based. Voting should take place at
official polling stations. Voting machines should produce a paper copy of
ballots as well as storing them on digital discs which are manually
transported by couriers to the central tally location. (Unofficial results
may be carried over the internet, if desired.)
	Voters should be able to choose their proxies from a national list. The
list of people registered as proxies should be kept on a secure national
master file which is also a matter of public record, available on the
internet, etc. Aside from just their name, there should be a bit of
information about them so that people who want to name them as their proxy
can distinguish them from others with the same name. Proxy registrations
should be filled some time in advance of the vote, to give couriers a
chance to bring secure copies of the proxy list from the central file,
etc. Voters could change their standing proxy list either at the time of
the vote or at other times, in the latter case going through something
similar to whatever channels people usually go through now to change their
voter registration info. When choosing their proxy lists, voters would be
able to search through a copy of the full national file in order to find
the right people.

	Since this direct democracy system is legally non-binding, and since it
is something entirely new rather than an existing institution already
governed by entrenched rules and practices, there is an exciting amount of
freedom in its design!
	In contrast, actually changing the electoral systems in the United
States, or any other major country, will be very difficult, and will take
a long time, to say the least. Electoral systems are deeply entrenched,
both in the constitution and in a variety of established practices. The
conservative backlash against even the most well-tested voting method is
sure to be intense and long-enduring. A change here may happen eventually,
and should be sought, but it may be easier to create something new than to
fight for changes in the existing system.
	When designing the new direct democracy (DD) system, ranked ballots
should of course be used when there are more than two options available to
voters. The official tally method should be Condorcet efficient. The exact
cycle-resolution method isn't extremely important, since the result is
non-binding, and if a cycle existed it would be up to interpretation
whether any option is somehow a strong winner. If the result was widely
believed to be ambiguous, then the DD result would effectively have the
status of a split decision and would not offer a single mandate to
policymakers, although of course it would suggest that they should choose
an option from the Schwartz set.
	The proxy system acts as a perfectly 'high resolution' version of
proportional representation, in that voters always get their first choice
of representative. As such it may provide an increased political role for
third parties, nonprofits, and community leaders.
	An interesting addition to this system would be to have a proportional
representation agenda setting vote. That is, for example, once per year
people could, as part of the direct democracy ballot, people could sort
through a long list of possible measures to be put to future direct
democracy vote, and rank them in order of urgency. The ranked ballots
should be processed according to Meek STV or CPO-STV, thus transforming
the long list into a short list of issues to actually be voted on in the
intervening period between agenda-setting votes. This would at least
assure that large minorities would be able to bring issues to the fore,
even though the issues would still need majority support to gain a
mandate. This PR vote wouldn't be the only source of issues on the DD
ballots. Issues could also be generated by the HOR, Senate, President,
etc. Basically this provision is intended to compensate for a legislature
which is not proportionally representational and is rather filled with
mostly conservative centrists. 

	The only serious objection I could see being made to this system is that
it would cost a lot of money. And indeed it would. (However, note here
that public works projects can be a good way to stimulate the economy in
times of recession... better, in my humble opinion, that regressive tax
cuts.) Also it would take a lot of time to set up, to get people
registered, to educate voters on how the system works. However, it would
actually allow the voice of the people to be heard clearly and as a result
of direct political action, rather than through the dubious conduits of
pollsters and focus groups. In contrast to proportional representation,
which can be (unfairly, in most cases) painted as some sort of elitist
strategy to increase the power of political parties and weaken local
representation, a direct democracy system would be hard to portray as
anything other than a leap forward in democracy. Because it is legally
non-binding it would not carry the risks that are generally associated
with direct democracy. In short, I think it would be great, and that it
just might work.

sincerely,
James Green-Armytage