[EM] non-binding direct democracy system

[James Green-Armytage]

Ernest Prabhakar <drernie at mac.com> writes:
>I owe you an apology.  I'm sorry I came across as negative or 
>derogatory.  

	Gladly accepted.

>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.

	Well, I am surely coming from more of a rational-imaginative direction
than an empirical one. Surely both are valuable. However, on this list it
is very common for proposals or arguments to have little or no empirical
content, in some cases because they deal with voting methods which have
not been put to practical use. So it doesn't seem very fair to single my
proposal out in particular for not being empirically grounded enough.
	I do think it would be interesting to actually do a comparative study of
different direct democracy systems around the world. I might consider that
for masters or doctoral research in the future. However, for now, I don't
have that sort of knowledge available.
	I would be quite interested in a critique of how referenda systems work,
but at this point you seem better equipped to provide that than I am. I
would certainly appreciate it if you'd like to outline how the California
system works along with its pros and cons as you perceive them. Perhaps
other people on the list who have experience with other referenda systems
could also contribute along these lines.
	However, lacking this information doesn't render my own proposal invalid
at all. The possibility remains that it would work terribly well if it was
implemented.
>
>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.

	Well, that is an admissible argument, and opens a rather broad topic for
discussion: the desirable balance between direct democracy and
representative democracy. It seems that you are less enthusiastic about
direct democracy than I am, and you are surely not alone in that.
	Basically I think that the non-binding part of the proposal takes a lot
of the teeth out of the anti-DD arguments. If it's non-binding then it
becomes a matter of communication essentially, an equalizing medium where
people's voices are heard more equally than they can be through the lenses
of network news, etc. 
	The main argument in favor of DD is that it's just plain more democratic.
Democracy means rulership by the people, rather than a small elite. Of
course my proposal still leaves legal power in the hands of the elite, but
at least the people have a chance to actually express their will on the
issues of the day. I don't see how we can be denied this and still be
called, without cynicism, a democracy.
	As far as problem-solving rather than politics, it is conceivable that
when issues are being voted on rather than leaders, there would be less
attack-attack-kill-kill incentive on the part of politicians, since it
isn't their own jobs at stake but just the fate of a single issue. Perhaps
your experience with referenda suggests otherwise, however.
	Also, through our study of election methods I think that we have all
learned that elections are tricky, paradoxical things mathematically, and
that they get more and more difficult to handle the more options there
are. A two-option election is beautifully straightforward. An election
where all options are neatly arrayed across a spectrum is also
straightforward. However, most close multicandidate election scenarios are
fraught with paradoxes that we just can't do away with. I suggest that the
more issues you have riding on each given vote, the more this problem is
exacerbated. I suggest that by keeping different issues separate from one
another in the voting process you can minimize the danger of resulting
paradoxes.
	Of course I would also like to see electoral reform that encourages more
sensible behavior in leaders. I favor high-district-magnitude PR for
legislatures, and a legislative body that is somewhat stronger than the
one we have in the US. I favor a Condorcet procedure for electing
executives. I favor serious campaign finance reform, de-oligopolization of
media outlets, more frequent and in-depth political debates, and so on.
>
>
>But if you have evidence or arguments for your viewpoint, I am willing 
>to listen; I'm sorry I overreacted the first time.

	Again, evidence is de facto not a prerequisite for making a point on this
list. I have given a few arguments, although I know that there are more
which I haven't mentioned. Again, I invite you to present a critique of
the Californian or any other referenda system. To be honest I'm living in
California as well at present (in Berkeley), although I have only been
here a few months and am still registered to vote in New York. As you
probably know, IRV passed referendum by a large margin here in Berkeley,
and I am glad for that, although of course I prefer Condorcet.
>