The Estonian option

[jim boy]

Have been toying with an idea inspired by listening to a show about the Estonian Goverment Portal. What they have is a single portal entrance to all government services, secured with your id card. With this you can request and submit forms, check your over due library books, view your medical records and recently they allow you to vote.

So it got me thinking, if you can vote in real time for a poltician whose only purpose is to vote on your behalf, then why not cut out the middle man and make voting on legislation available to everyone? Up until only a couple of years ago we needed pollies. There was no way in practical terms that everyone could collaborate on passing legislation, but this is no longer the case.

Politicians have two roles of course, to pass legislation and to execute governance. The former is just not needed any more and the latter can be addressed by other means -many countries such as the US and France elect one person - a president

There are issues to be resolved, how does legislation get proposed? How does legislation get framed? But these are issues that can be solved.

 

[Max zero]

The biggest issue with direct voting is the apathy of the voting public.

How is a majority calculated (based on the number who voted or total voter population)? The latter basically requires compulsory while the former introduces potential abuses.

Either way the proposal is based upon the idea that the average person on the steet is better informed and more motivated then the average politician. For all of Australian politician's faults (and there are plenty) this would be hard to prove.

I would argue the two biggest problems with Australian politics at the moment are:

1) Political Parties - politicians are supposed to represent their voters not party ideology.

2) Private donations - all political funding should be done from public funds.

 

[Jiska]

Either way the proposal is based upon the idea that the average person on the steet is better informed and more motivated then the average politician. For all of Australian politician's faults (and there are plenty) this would be hard to prove.

This is the major issue I would have thought. Regardless on which side of politics is in power, there are a lot of pieces of legislation that pass through which are good for the country/state but aren't good for individuals. The most basic and easiest example is speed limits and fines. I'm quite sure most people would get rid of one or both given the choice. For all their faults, politicians generically speaking, are intelligent people that have the best interests of the country at heart, even if we don't necessarily agree with all the decisions that they make. I'm not sure that the same could be said of majority of the community, most of which have their own best interests at heart, which is why the major parties release a stack of vote grabbing policies right before an election.

The fundamental issue with the proposal is that the only way it would ever happen is for politicians to initiate sacking themselves, and that sure as hell will never happen. I have long been a believer that state governments should be removed and we should only have a federal government and local councils, but the same problem exists here - no state politician is going to sack themselves.

 

[jim boy]

This is the major issue I would have thought. Regardless on which side of politics is in power, there are a lot of pieces of legislation that pass through which are good for the country/state but aren't good for individuals. The most basic and easiest example is speed limits and fines. I'm quite sure most people would get rid of one or both given the choice.

I'm quite sure they wouldn't, if put to the vote I'd be surprised if more than 5% vote to abolish speed fines etc. People aren't that stupid. But the main point is that even in the highly unlikely event that such laws were repealed, then that simply is the choice that we as a democracy have decided to take, why should that be wrong? Surely it would be easier to convince a few key political party members through whatever means to pass legislation that favours that individual (think Rupert Murdoch), than it would be to convince a majority of Australians to pass the same legislation.

I'm a firm believer that democracy should mean the will of the people, not the will of the powerful elite (benevolent or otherwise), or even worse, democracy based upon the vested interest of political parties.

The biggest issue with direct voting is the apathy of the voting public.

How is a majority calculated (based on the number who voted or total voter population)? The latter basically requires compulsory while the former introduces potential abuses.

Either way the proposal is based upon the idea that the average person on the steet is better informed and more motivated then the average politician. For all of Australian politician's faults (and there are plenty) this would be hard to prove.

I would argue the two biggest problems with Australian politics at the moment are:

1) Political Parties - politicians are supposed to represent their voters not party ideology.

2) Private donations - all political funding should be done from public funds.

Certainly direct voting would kill both those issues stone dead. As for majority, there would certainly be a process, including vetting, voting windows etc and probably a quorum required so that legislature can't just be sneaked in. Changes to constitution would take a majority vote of all voters (as it does now) while legislature changes would be simple majority of those who voted. Voter Apathy is not such a bad thing. If you can't be bothered finding out the options, then dont vote.

It would also enable people to vote with their conscious, feel strongly about the environment in line with the greens, but want the fiscal economic policies of The Libs? You can't do both now under the current system, but you could with direct voting.

In the Estonian model, information is provided for pro and anti arguments on legislation, they have also started crowd sourcing composure of legislation. It's exciting stuff. The internet has enabled new possibilities for democracy that just weren't possible before. Sure there are hurdles to overcome and you want to go in with confidence that you have the correct model, but that is democracy for you.

 

[Long Live HFC]

So it got me thinking, if you can vote in real time for a poltician whose only purpose is to vote on your behalf, then why not cut out the middle man and make voting on legislation available to everyone?

coz people are idiots.

 

[Mofra]

Weren't the LDP proposing a "Senator Online" arrangement at some stage?

As an aside, the Estonian option appears to the the model that social services in Victoria is moving to after the Peter Shergold review (ex head of PM's department under Howard). Has certainly teased out some efficiencies, although there are a few services that are falling through the cracks; in time it may prove to be quite an effective set of reforms overall.

 

[telsor]

Surely it would be easier to convince a few key political party members through whatever means to pass legislation that favours that individual (think Rupert Murdoch), than it would be to convince a majority of Australians to pass the same legislation.

Just quoting this bit because it highlights how much larger a role the media would play in any such system.

Also, going by media trends, it suggests that simplistic, dog whistle, arguments would prove disturbingly effective.

It would also, in all likelihood, tend to put more power in the hands of the civil service who would tend to frame/execute the verdicts from the polls.


I argue for a 'jury' like system of...
1) Propose issue.
2) Empanel a group from the electoral rolls (say, 1 from each electorate).
3) Allow all interested groups to provide submissions, with all contact with the legislative group done in public.
4) Have the legislative group consider all submissions, and allow them to question the interested parties.
5) The legislative group then creates and votes on legislation.

Of course, some legislation (e.g. the budget) would be significantly bigger than others, and sub groups may be required. They would also need to be some compensation for the time these matters require (probably higher than current pollies cost, because it'd take longer for people to get up to speed).

 

[LennyStarkiller]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland

What do you think about how the Swiss do things? From my understanding if our democracy was like the Swiss and the Coalition was to pass the repeal of the Carbon Tax, a petition could be signed and once a set minimum amount of signatures were reached then the issue would go to a public vote to see if the majority wanted it repealed or not.
Nothing more annoying than a political party saying the majority voted for them because the public agreed with every single issue the party took to the election.

 

[telsor]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Switzerland

What do you think about how the Swiss do things? From my understanding if our democracy was like the Swiss and the Coalition was to pass the repeal of the Carbon Tax, a petition could be signed and once a set minimum amount of signatures were reached then the issue would go to a public vote to see if the majority wanted it repealed or not.
Nothing more annoying than a political party saying the majority voted for them because the public agreed with every single issue the party took to the election.

Pretty sure California has a similar system.

That said, in your example, I suspect the Carbon tax would have been rejected by this method when it was brought in. After all, Gillard promised not to do it as a pre-election vote grab because the polls showed it was unpopular.

 

[telsor]

Just checked the california system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition

The criticism secton highlights two big problems.

1. It takes money to get these things going, so they tend to favor the rich.

2. Competing laws hamstring parliament (example used...limits on taxes and requirements for education spending)

 

[telsor]

Of course, there is an inherent catch-22 in all this.

In order to have such reform, we'd need the current political system to vote to reduce/abolish it's own power...and if they'd do that, there would be much less need for such reforms.

 

[LennyStarkiller]

Pretty sure California has a similar system.

That said, in your example, I suspect the Carbon tax would have been rejected by this method when it was brought in. After all, Gillard promised not to do it as a pre-election vote grab because the polls showed it was unpopular.

Even though I agree that there should be a Carbon Tax, what you say is true about that it would never have passed a public vote.
It would be interesting to go through what legislation was unpopular at the time it was passed through parliament that would have probably been voted against by the public, that is still law today.

 

[jim boy]

I argue for a 'jury' like system of...
1) Propose issue.
2) Empanel a group from the electoral rolls (say, 1 from each electorate).
3) Allow all interested groups to provide submissions, with all contact with the legislative group done in public.
4) Have the legislative group consider all submissions, and allow them to question the interested parties.
5) The legislative group then creates and votes on legislation.

Happy with all of that, except the voting on legislation. While you dont want an ill-informed electorate deciding what to vote for, what you could have is a system more like a court, where a summary of the pros and the cons are presented and have to be viewed before voting with further information available to those who want to be better informed. That way you get informed people voting, instead of what we have now which is ill-informed politicians voting on party lines.

 

[telsor]

Happy with all of that, except the voting on legislation. While you dont want an ill-informed electorate deciding what to vote for, what you could have is a system more like a court, where a summary of the pros and the cons are presented and have to be viewed before voting with further information available to those who want to be better informed. That way you get informed people voting, instead of what we have now which is ill-informed politicians voting on party lines.

I'd say you tend to get people who care about that issue voting....Which could lead to (relatively) small but well organised/motivated groups getting 'their' issues through, and while you might think that in some cases this might be good, consider the policies the Greens and Religious right (picked because their supporters tend to be both polar opposites and highly motivated, so I'm sure nobody would agree with all that both would propose) might get through.

When you have people optionally voting on a different issue every few days, the apathy of the masses would see a lot get through by motivated minorities.

 

[jim boy]

I'd say you tend to get people who care about that issue voting....Which could lead to (relatively) small but well organised/motivated groups getting 'their' issues through, and while you might think that in some cases this might be good, consider the policies the Greens and Religious right (picked because their supporters tend to be both polar opposites and highly motivated, so I'm sure nobody would agree with all that both would propose) might get through.

When you have people optionally voting on a different issue every few days, the apathy of the masses would see a lot get through by motivated minorities.

I don't think those assumptions are valid at all. Right now the electorate is disenfranchised. I get to vote once every three years or so, and even then the only thing I'm voting on is who going to vote on my behalf for the next three or four years. And even its highly likely I'll have ever never spoken to this person and even if I have then regardless of what they or I truly believe in, they'll just vote along party lines. It's a massive, massive task to have any sort of any say as individual on any piece of legislation, so who in their right mind would bother? Generally only crack pots. That is the system we currently have.

But imagine a system people do have a real vote, and they have a real vote on every issue. It re-empowers people to participate in a system that governs our lives. It will encourage people to find out what the issues are and lead them to take a stand.

Of course this is all speculation, nothing will change for another 100 years.

 

[baz_machine]

The only time that I can think of where direct democracy was tried was Ancient Greece and that descended into mob rule pretty quickly after implementation.

 

[Richard Pryor]

I don't want government policy trolled by internet hackers.

 

[baz_machine]

I don't want government policy trolled by internet hackers.

Would be pretty telling when Chief is elected Prez for Life with $12,433,346 tax free salary

 

[Munga]

Have been toying with an idea inspired by listening to a show about the Estonian Goverment Portal. What they have is a single portal entrance to all government services, secured with your id card. With this you can request and submit forms, check your over due library books, view your medical records and recently they allow you to vote.

So it got me thinking, if you can vote in real time for a poltician whose only purpose is to vote on your behalf, then why not cut out the middle man and make voting on legislation available to everyone? Up until only a couple of years ago we needed pollies. There was no way in practical terms that everyone could collaborate on passing legislation, but this is no longer the case.

Politicians have two roles of course, to pass legislation and to execute governance. The former is just not needed any more and the latter can be addressed by other means -many countries such as the US and France elect one person - a president

There are issues to be resolved, how does legislation get proposed? How does legislation get framed? But these are issues that can be solved.

I've thought about this previously and would like to see it in action. My worry would be too many idiots have a vote. I wouldn't trust them to wipe properly, let alone make decisions for the country. We already vote for morons to be Prime Minister! Maybe one should have to pass an intelligence test to permit a vote hahaha.

 

[LennyStarkiller]

I've thought about this previously and would like to see it in action. My worry would be too many idiots have a vote. I wouldn't trust them to wipe properly, let alone make decisions for the country. We already vote for morons to be Prime Minister! Maybe one should have to pass an intelligence test to permit a vote hahaha.

Haha I was thinking the same. I couldn't believe it when one of my friends had posted on Facebook during the last election that just because she got annoyed by the constant in your face campaigning by one of the candidates that she would vote against them. Seriously, just ignore how annoying the campaigning is and go through each parties election promises and ideologies and see what best suits you and decide.

 

[Play by Numbers]

I don't want government policy trolled by internet hackers.

As opposed to one governed by international backers?

Sorry, slightly tongue in cheek.

 

[medusala]

People are too stupid to think for themselves.

We need super intelligent people like Wong, Plibersek, swannie, Pyne and Bernadi to think for us.

 

[Windhover]

Direct voting on everything (right down to the municipal level) was the brilliant initiative of Michael Rimmer in the satirical film "The Rise and Rise of Michael Rimmer" starring Peter Cook. I think the film pretty accurately conveyed the rapidly dwindling interest most people would have faced with having to make 100s of political decisions on a daily basis. The direct voting initiative worked brilliantly for Rimmer because, after a short period of direct voting the people very enthusiastically supported the Rimmer proposal that he make the decisions for them and thereby become a democratically elected dictator for life, his final goal and the end of the movie.