[EM] non-binding direct democracy system

[Ernest Prabhakar]

Hi James,


> In general I don't understand the reason for your apparently derogatory
> tone. Why is the word "innovations" in quotes? I didn't even use that
> word. You seem to be suggesting that my proposal is laughably 
> unoriginal
> and simplistic, which I really don't get. In this proposal and the 
> other
> one it makes reference to, there are a few ideas which I have never 
> seen
> anywhere else. How many new ideas does a list posting need to have 
> before
> you refrain from making fun of it?

I owe you an apology.  I'm sorry I came across as negative or 
derogatory.  I suppose I'm just a little cynical about direct 
democracy, having lived in California for 15 years.

  I sympathize with your viewpoint about wanting to get the public more 
involved in dealing with some of these important issues.   However, I'm 
not sure broader citizen involvement is the appropriate answer.   In my 
experience, referenda are about as politicized and demagogic as our 
assemblies - some a little better, some a little worse.

I guess I would take your proposal more seriously if it included a 
critique of how referenda system work in other places (like 
California), and why your proposal would improve upon them.  Right now, 
it sounded to me more like a philosophical hope that direct democracy 
would solve these problems, rather than an empirically-based analysis.

My personal belief is that the problems is not so much greater and 
lesser citizen involvement per se, but a lack of coherent leadership - 
at all levels, not just in government - that is serious about problem 
solving, rather than rhetoric.  That's why I place more faith in 
electoral reform to reinforce more sensible behavior in leaders, rather 
than in direct democracy.

But if you have evidence or arguments for your viewpoint, I am willing 
to listen; I'm sorry I overreacted the first time.

-- Ernie P.




On Mar 22, 2004, at 4:22 AM, James Green-Armytage wrote:

> Ernest Prabhakar <ernest at drernie.com> wrote:
>> Um, as someone who lives in California with our hyperactive referendum
>> system, I'm a little unclear about what is so 'new' and 'exciting'
>> about your system.   Increased direct democracy has helped address 
>> some
>> problems, but overall it hasn't done very much to solve the state's
>> chronic political problems.
>> The only "innovations" in your proposal
>> seem to be the use of proxy voting
>> and making it non-binding, neither
>> of which seem like they'd increase participation or impact over what 
>> we
>> have today.
>> Perhaps you could be clearer about what problem you're trying to 
>> solve,
>> and how it improves over existing alternatives?
>
> I (James G-A) reply:



>
> Mr. Prabhakar,
> 	Well, for one thing, my proposal would bring referenda to the federal
> level, where at present they are to my knowledge either scarce or
> non-existent. Also the idea is to use direct votes for guidance on 
> most of
> the political issues that are controversial and important at a given 
> time.
> I wasn't really thinking about the state and local level. I suppose 
> that
> each state or town has it's own procedure for referenda, and to be 
> honest
> I'm not familiar with any of those systems in detail. If I was, I might
> have some constructive criticisms to make.
> 	The problem I'm trying to solve is the problem of people having only a
> very diffuse and indirect impact on government policy. It seems like
> people have to choose between two ready-made packages, such as 
> "democrat"
> and "republican", or "Kerry" and "Bush". Just choosing between these 
> two
> packages totally glosses over even the slightest bit of nuance that 
> might
> exist in people's political beliefs. Basically it's an 
> oversimplification
> so drastic that it's dangerous. I'd like to take the issues one by one 
> so
> that we could get some clarity. For example, I'd like a vote on 
> different
> kinds of tax policies. How progressive an income tax do people actually
> want? Are people interested in starting a wealth tax rather than an 
> income
> tax? Is anyone interested in shortening the work week? Is there a 
> majority
> in favor of invading a middle-eastern nation? Is there a supermajority 
> in
> favor of some sort of anti-gay-marriage constitutional amendment? 
> Could we
> get a majority in favor of higher animal rights standards or better
> environmental enforcement? How about legalizing marijuana, or at least
> lowering prison time for posession? What about the death penalty,
> affirmative action, abortion? All these are separate issues which don't
> deserve to be lumped together into winner-take-all packages. So what 
> I'm
> interested in is using these direct votes as guides towards overall 
> policy
> direction.
>>
> 	In general I don't understand the reason for your apparently 
> derogatory
> tone. Why is the word "innovations" in quotes? I didn't even use that
> word. You seem to be suggesting that my proposal is laughably 
> unoriginal
> and simplistic, which I really don't get. In this proposal and the 
> other
> one it makes reference to, there are a few ideas which I have never 
> seen
> anywhere else. How many new ideas does a list posting need to have 
> before
> you refrain from making fun of it?
>
> James
>
> ----
> Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list 
> info