1  2  Next

I'm posting to let people know about the new Direct Democracy Canada site.

The site is dedicated to the development of direct democracy in Canada.

If you are interested in participating in the creation of a true democracy in Canada or would just like to know more about direct democracy, please visit us. We need your ideas.

Direct Democracy Canada is a non-partisan site.

   

I'm still not convinced, but check it out. It's cool. Also ask Huron lots of questions.

   

Ummm, sure.

But only after you've read the 'basic' DD stuff on the DDC site.

We're not pretending we have all the answers, which is why we need the thoughts and ideas of as many Canadians as possible.

Anyway, I'm not here to convince anyone, just to put the idea on the table for consideration.

   

Is this the same as direct access democracy?

http://www.etches.net/index.html

   

Same goals. But no, DDC is not affiliated with Direct Acess Democracy.

   

It's not whether you have all the answers Huron, it's that you make an honest attempt to answer them.

   

More bureaucracy
Higher cost
Demands a minim precipitation of the population.
Slows EVERY decision down dramatically.
And the real fight shifts to what questions will be put before the population.
And would promote a regional mentality at the federal leval
Shifts the criteria of a bill from necessity to a demographic juggling act in Ottawa

   

Just to add to Ralph's points, my problems with such a system would be as follows:

Your site often cites Switzerland as a fine model Huron, which it is. But for the majority of their referendums the voter turnout is usually below 50%. Would that be considered the will of the majority?

Another such model I would draw attention to is California. In CA, there are ballot initiatives and recall elections and look how well those worked. When recalls and ballot initiatives were first allowed in CA just before the start of the 20th century, they made sense. Now they are only available to those with money and an agenda which was the case in the recall of Gov. Gray Davis. In that case, a Republican henchman (a nicer term) paid people a dolor for their signature to initiate the recall.

So in short, my question is how would frivolous initiatives and recalls be handled? Becuase if they were limited to certain cost for starting an initiative/recall then it would be the return of money into democracy? Also, if there was a comittee established to judge potential intiatives, then the potential initators could easily claim that it really wasan't "direct democracy".

   

Why?



How do you know? Greater accountability in government processes could decrease overall costs.



Why?




How long does it take government to make decisions today? What evidence do you have to support this statement?



Why?



Not necessarily. Please provide examples of what you mean in this regard.



Please provide examples of what you mean in this regard.



Voter turn-out re: a specific issue can be deceptive. Every issue will not affect every voter and as such will receive a turn-out from those who do feel impacted.

For example, if a national referendum had been called in respect of gay marriage, I probably might not have vote because this issue doesn't impact me and I don't feel strongly about the matter either way. Obviously those who feel they are impacted would vote. I'm not saying my decision in this regard is 'right', just that this is what would probably happen.

Regardless, the situation is no different than in our representational system today. Either people choose to vote, which many don't, or they live with the consequences of not doing so. DD at least offers the possibility of a tool through which citizens could reverse decisions that prove undesirable far more quickly than may be the case in the representational model.



Good question. All I can say at this point is that we have many examples to look at that can assist in developing the processes we need. Hopefully, we can learn from and avoid the drawbacks present in the examples we review. Whatever processes/solutions we develop, we can be pretty sure the result won't be perfect. We'll have unanticipated and unintended results will need to be corrected and the system will continue to evolve.

The model we (and by 'we', I mean all interested Canadians) develop will meet our particular needs and circumstances.



I know what you're saying Rev, and I'll do my best. However, DD is citizen, not 'leader with all the answers', driven and as such many 'answers' must be agreeable to most citizens and can be arrived at only with input from those same citizens. I can offer my personal views however, these aren't necessarily written in stone 'answers'. And in terms of the nitty-gritty, as indicated above DD models used elsewhere may not be fully suitable for Canadian needs, and thus may not be appropriate 'answers' for questions involving the actual mechanics of the system.

I'd really appreciate questions being asked on the DDC site, as there are other contributors who may be better qualified/more knowledgable then myself who can provide answers. Also, it will keep the questions and responses centralized, as opposed to being scattered throughout numerous web forums.

My view is that discussion of what seem to others legitimate concerns about DD is a valid activity, and one that can serve only to better the final product.

However, in doing so, we shouldn't ignore the system we have today. So, let's take a brief look at federal system of today.

Our nation is for all intents and purposes run by the PM and PM selected cabinet, and whatever interests they choose to serve.

The citizen's so called democratic right in our nation is limited to selecting between several candidates representing platforms and views that may not fully accord with most citizen's views.

For example, as citizen 'Joe', I may have candidates from party A, B, C and D competing for my vote. My overall agreement with the platforms offered may be 60%, 40%, 25% and 15%. Now to make things easy, we'll say all candidates and their party leaders are relatively equal in my eyes.

So, I vote for party A because it seems the part that accords most to my views and interests however, I'm still not agreeable to forty percent of their platform. As it happens, few others in my riding support that 40% of the platform, or in many cases any of party A's platform.

Anyway, my party A candidate wins with 30% of the votes cast by the 60% of eligible voters who chose to participate, parties B, C and D garnering 25%, 25% and 20% of the remaining votes.

We now have a situation were the views of 70% of those who voted may not be considered during my candidates term of office.

Once the election is over, no one from party A seeks to elicit my views on any issue. Party A will decide it's own priorities. As it turns out, party A's priorities include the 40% of their platform with which I didn't agree and 10% of the 60% with which I did agree.

I and at least 70% of my riding's constituents aren't happy about this however, there's nothing we can do to change anything before the next election.

Come the next election, the process starts again.

In a PR environment, maybe we'd have a few more party B representatives present than in the current system however, this still offers no guarantee of citizen priorities being addressed to any greater extent than they are today, as the party A and B reps may spend their time making deals to forward one anothers particular priorities, which again may not correspond to citizen priorities.

That's the system you have today. A Canadian citizen can spend their entire life supporting their nation without ever having any input into the actual decisions that affect that either. Sure, you get to choose who makes the decisions and sets the priorities however, you'll never be doing this yourself.

In considering potential issues for DD, it is also necessary that these be considered in terms of how each stacks up against the issues present in the 'democracy' we all enjoy today.

   

But somebody has to respond to the basic concerns so that people will look further into it. You and Scott are pretty good at that.



I doubt you'll find a lot of people in this country who would argue that the current system works.



Proportional representation leads to deal making and coalition governments. Those deals can put different prioities on an equal footing. For example, the environment is obviously a pretty low priority for Paul Martin. There is a part of the Liberal party that considers it a higher priority though. The NDP consider it to be a much higher priority, as do the Green Party.

Under PR both the NDP and the Greens would have more power in parliament (the Greens would have some, which is way far ahead of they are now) so they could force the issue to the top of the Liberal agenda.

That works the other way too...there is little support for BMD outside of the farthest right part of the Liberal Party and the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives. Most of the Canadian people do not support it. Under PR the deals being struck would likely have a lot of Liberals voting against it, along with the NDP, Bloc, and Greens. It would have become a pretty low priority (likely disappeared altogether) under those circumstances.

I picked those issues for a reason. What would the most likely outcomes be under Direct Democracy? They aren't yes or no issues, they are complex. Does everybody have to become an expert on them?

In the case of the environment would a referendum be based solely on Kyoto, or would it go beyond that? Would it just be based on ratification, or on one or more plans for implementation? How complex can it be? Does it guide general policy or address specific concerns? Can it move quickly enough to deal with the changing political situations outside of Canada?

Same with BMD. Is it just BMD or is it deep integration and a North American security perimeter? What does participation really mean? Should a referendum deal with the trade implications? The business aspect? What about NORAD?

   

Oddly enough, I used Kyoto as an example in a little article I wrote a few months back. It isn't great however, I think it gets the point across..

http://directdemocracycanada.ca/news.php?extend.26

You're right. I've started adding some content to the DDC site that addresses common questions/concerns. I hope this will prove of some value to people.

The conundrum I have is that I'm not interested in 'selling' people on the DD concept, so am not desirous of spending immense amounts of time arguing the pros-cons. Based on my life experience, I think for many reasons that we have to move beyond the quasi-oligarchy termed democracy in most western societies, peimarily because we'll be screwed if we don't. However, that's only my personal belief and not one I'm interested in trying to shove down the throats of others. So, what I'm doing now is putting DD on the table for others to consider.





Had PR been applicable in the last election, yes the NDP and Greens would be more greatly represented (or for the Greens, represented) in Parliament. However, together they would still lack the power to push anything to the top of the Liberal priorities that the Conservatives did not oppose. Given different circumstances, PR could have an impact however, only if those different circumstances, e.g., significantly greater NDP/Green/CAP support in the nation than currently exists, were present.

Regardless, it will remain true that political parties, rather than citizens will decide what is and is not a priority and what should, or should not be discussed, subject to referendum, etc.

And we're still stuck with the fact that neither of Canada's mainstream parties are likely to support PR because neither really has much to gain from supporting the concept.



Well, most of the MPs voting on them won't be experts. I addressed this to some extent in the article mentioned above however, will elaborate.

The complexity lies in the analysis of the facts pertinent to the issue, not the decision.

MPs (like corporate execs) are not experts on every, or most, subjects for which they may need to render a decision.

The information provided to MPs for the issues you mention will outline the issue, provide background, list options and provide pros and cons for each. Based on this information, the MP will make their decision, assuming they actually read the material rather than merely voting the party line.

The research and analysis supporting the information is performed by the subject matter experts, either public or private, rather than the MP themselves. The job of the MP is, at best, to weigh the pros and cons associated with each option and make the 'best' decision possible based on the available information.

The same information can be provided to citizens by public servants or private sector experts which they employ.

I'll reiterate that the complexity is in analysis, which is not necessarily the decision maker's job, rather than the decision itself.

In terms of complexity, I should point out that a layer is removed by placing decision making in the hands of citizens.

Citizens do not need to concern themselves about re-election or losing financial support from backers if their decisions hit the wrong nerve. Ciitizens don't face the quandary of how their decision may impact the political, and post-political, 'careers'.

So, putting decision making in citizen hands actually reduces complexity.

One thing that citizens will need to be cognitive of is the impact of their decisions on others. For example, if the factory in my home town was facing closure from a decision that may be good for the nation as a whole, I'd probably vote in whatever way seemed best for my own future, and I'd probably be on the losing end, and my liveliehood would disappear in the name of the national good.

Part of the pros-cons for any option will have to include the impact on Canadian communities, and the costs involved in minimizing this impact. Canadians cannot become victims of decisions that must be made in the national interest solely due to their being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

This kind of ties into a comment from another site we both visit, wherein the author noted the U.S. Civil war as in part arising from a 'decentralization' of power to the states. This view is erroneous. The primary cause of that war was one region attempting to force its will on another, without considering the consequences for the other region. Regardless of the 'North's' high-ground morally, the demands made on the south would have destroyed that region's economy. The arguement can be made that had the north considered the situation faced by the south and been prepared to offer financial support to south towards the goal of ending slavery and providing freed slaves with appropriate skills and education, the war probably could have been avoided and the US might not have faced some of the difficulties that have plagued it since that time. In doing the 'right thing', citizens must consider who their decisions will affect and ensure these individuals do not suffer as a result, rather than simply demanding others do the 'right thing' and suffer the consequences alone.

Some questions may not, as you point out, be of a simplistic yes and no nature, e.g., several options may be available. However, I believe we can find satisfactory satisfactory solutions to deal with these situations.

   

But to me Kyoto, whether we voted yes or no, is a small part of the overall environmental issue. Global warming is a much larger issue than the Kyoto Accord, and even if the US had been successful in scuttling it, I would have wanted Canada to move towards (and eventually past) the goals Kyoto sets. That's not strictly an environmental concern, but also a long-term economic one.

Now that we've passed Kyoto we are doing very little to meet the goals set in it. Rick Mercer is advertising the "One Ton Challenge" which is all well and good, but we aren't seeing tax rebates on making homes more energy efficient or subsidies to the oil industry being cut or gas guzzler taxes.


Under DD would we have strictly been voting on Kyoto, or would we be voting for/against various plans for cleaning up our environment and using the relevant technologies as an economic stimulus?

Under representative democracy the parties generally come up with at least the skeleton of such plans in their platforms. That gives us the ability to say, "I like this plan better so I'm voting for this party," or, since most people vote against instead of for, "These bozos haven't got a plan, or even a clue. I think I'll park my vote elsewhere."

If we adopt a version of DD that allows us to vote for (or against) a plan, and there is a real unbiased way to evaluate the various plans, I'm all for it. If we just vote and say, "Yes," to Kyoto and leave it up to whatever crop of bozos is in charge, then I'd much rather see PR.

   

Sorry for the delay. Had a few issues arise that have kept pretty much kept me away from the PC
recently.

Don't want to be inconvenient however, I wrote my response on the DDC site because I thought the questions you've raised would also be of interest to visitors there. My response is here.

   

same as above

   

I think proportional representation is a much better way to go; I'm not really sold on direct democracy. This seems like its going back to the Greek model of democracy, which Aristole called 'preverted'. I would agree with Aristotle, this type of government would most likely lead to a tyranny of the majority. Our elected officials are there not only to uphold the rights of the majority, but to protect those whose voice isn't as loud.

   

1  2  Next