Direct Democracy in Canada

I've thought that this form of democracy is do-able with today's technology. The only problem is maintaining the anonymity of the tried and true polling station. Abuse could be so easy without a proper way to cast your ballot anonymously, but ballots must be handed out one to a person. Electronic voting without a paper trail also opens wide the potential for abuse (see: California vs Diebold). I've suggested before; perhaps a kiosk type of situation located near people, in a mall perhaps, could not only give access to people without Internet access but also provide the anonymity needed in a democracy. There is a project for 'open source' voting machines, where anyone who wants to can audit the hardware and software to check for abuses. It might even be feasable to provide machines, such as a secure terminal, to people in the home.

Technology may not be the issue in order to move more substantially toward Direct Democracy. There is far too much deadweight in the existing political elite including cronies and bureaucrats to move onto the new millenium and relinquish control. Just look at how long it took to just discuss proportional representation! Special interest groups and powerful lobbies would lose out on all of this, something not to be underestimated. People are generally far too comfortable with our system in order to do substantial changes to it. And they are also often very reluctant participants. A few problems to solve first? Our neighbours south of the border are generally faster at adopting technologies in order to solve real problems. They certainly have plenty as we all well know. Check John Kerry's forum <a href="http://http://forum.johnkerry.com">here</a> Whether Direct Democracy is yet an other illusion of a solution to complex problems (aka ideology) remains to be seen. Not much will happen until all the stakeholders see how they can benefit from the changes somehow. Failures are likely to be blamed on the technology rather than on who controls and uses it in support of statu-quo. IMHO we have got to work with the tools that we have somehow and become more "pratico-pratique".

I mentioned the technology only to indicate that tools can be available to support a system that previously may not have been feasible for nations like Canada. If the citizens of Canada bought into direct democracy, I have no doubt that a technical solution could be developed to support the system. However, I was hoping to focus on the direct democracy concept rather than the tools that could be utilized to support it. In terms of of moving towards direct democracy, the only way to effectively do so would be to elect a party whose primary platform would be to implement the system, then dissolve both the current 'representational' system and itself (hey, I didn't say this wasn't a pipe dream, or easy.). I don't think it's always the case that most people are satisfied or comfortable with the current system. In many cases, they just don't see how they could effectively do anything to change it. So, they throw in the towel and go with the flow. Being offered an opportunity to take an active part in their nation's decision making process could energize many who have walked away from the table. People interested in preserving Canada have tried to work with the tools we have for many years, and the situation has only worsened. While I'll certainly support a PR approach as at least offering some chance of improvement, the truth is that if you examine the results the recent election PR wouldn't have changed much, in that the Liberals and Conservatives would still have a majority between them and neither party is interested in addressing most of the concerns raised on this board. Given that this is always likely to be the case, I don't see any chance to protect the interests of most citizens using the current or a modified representational model or that there is really much interest in doing so evinced by the two parties which effectively control, and will continue to control, the nation's destiny.

[QUOTE BY= Calumny] In terms of moving towards direct democracy, the only way to effectively do so would be to elect a party whose primary platform would be to implement the system, then dissolve both the current 'representational' system and itself (hey, I didn't say this wasn't a pipe dream, or easy.). [/QUOTE] I get really bad shivers just thinking of the recent screw up on the gun registry which looked like a rather simple task. Some of these people could really lose themselves in a shoe box if they were given the opportunity. Politicians, bureaucrats and others that have never held a real job in their life would not have a clue. Many of those barely know what is an Internet forum or have never been on one. Entrusting them with the opportunity to build the proposed system would definitely be far more dangerous to mankind as we know it than the case of the rubber hitting the road with a 51% yes referendum vote <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/wink.gif' alt='Wink'> Also an incredible great terrorist ploy, or a good topic for a book of very dark tech humour. It would be more "pratico-pratique" IMHO to identify a small problem and solve it via a "Direct Democracy" effort. Remember "Small is beautiful" from Schumaker! A problem that the nation has struggled with for years and have even gone backward on it. Make your pick. State a small problem, kickstart a discussion, work toward a consensus. Deploy a solution at a small level. Get buy-in and refine. Also known as grassroot democracy. Vive looks like it could be such a tool IMHO. At Microsoft, they say "Eat your own dog food". Sometimes don't we wonder if they do? Perhaps we should on the Direct Democracy front <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/biggrin.gif' alt='Big Grin'>

As a bureaucrat myself, I should be hurt. However, I know exactly what you mean. You're right on target re: starting small/keeping simple as possible. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

An other point I forgot to make is that in a "Direct Democracy", there is no need for a proxy anymore. I think it will take time for attitude to change on this. Likely not in my lifetime :-(

Final point: you were mentionning that existing tools have been used unsuccessfully so far. I suspect there has been all kinds of grassroot NGO effort representative of Direct Democracy that have brought about changes needed. So it would probably be important to identify those as references to work from.

I'm sure it will be interesting to see how many people adjust to having to think and decide for themselves, rather than having this handled by proxies. As to a time frame, who knows? Somewhere between soon and never. Sometimes 'grassroot democracy' is more a matter of a small group, e.g. 'community action group' putting pressure on a politician to take actions to which the larger 'community' might not agree were the 'question' put to them. The poltician caves to avoid 'bad' publicity, or make themselves look good, and counts on time to work in their favour, e.g., people forget or are distracted by something worse/more upsetting.

I think it's an interesting discussion, and a necessary one. A worry I have about the technology is that there are technological haves and have-nots and generally poor people have much less access to and understanding of the technology (prime example--the internet) than more affluent people. Same can be said to some extent for people of colour and women, especially when you look at the global population. I also worry about the fact that your average person is often insanely ignorant and/or misinformed about the political process and the issues that affect them. One thing I learned from running in the election is that a huge number of otherwise intelligent people don't know things as basic as the name of their riding, what a riding is, or the difference between federal and provincial issues. This is a problem for our current democracy, and I'm sure it would be for direct democracy as well--perhaps more so. How do you teach people that becoming informed is their responsibility as a citizen? Because if you don't teach them that, they will make bad decisions, whatever form of government they have. Lastly, I think it's true that it's very difficult to completely replace an entire system for a new system. I am much more optimistic about PR, largely because it is much more possible to implement it. Even if we bring it in, it will probably be a mixed system (like in New Zealand) rather than straight PR because it's much more likely Canadians will choose not to alter all of our political traditions at once. I think direct democracy is a dream that is currently far, far ahead of its time. However, all that said I'm interested in the idea of making Vive into more of a direct democracy model, because that's probably much more doable and within our reach. Why should we do this? How could we do this? What would we change? Do you want me (or Jesse) to explain how Vive currently works in terms of decision making etc first?

I wonder if Samuel will find more Direct Democracy in Quebec than in Canada.

Aaaaahhh, Samuel....wrong thread... Oh, well. Very valid points. Methods by which technology could be utilized to support direct democracy and ensure access to all citizens will require significant analysis and citizen input. Fortunately, younger Canadians of all backgrounds in general pretty technologically savvy now. I don't foresee the task of distributing the necessary technolgy (DSL in every home!!!) as being excessively difficult. Interestingly enough, this parallels nicely with Jean's effort to have Canada be the most wired country in the world. As Dr. Caleb pointed out, there are a number of options available for voting, e.g., from home, kiosk, etc. (not car though, because we want everyone's attention on their driving). Home technology could be potentially limitted to that required for an an informational portal to provide plain language, multi-lingual descriptions of issues requiring a vote, background information, alternatives and consequences/benefits of each alternative. You're right concerning citizen ignorance (my own included) concerning the political process and national issues in general, the SUN analysis of these issues aside. Obviously this isn't any more desirable in a direct democracy system than it is in our current represetational system. I think this can partially be addressed by identifying what we as a nation believe it means to be a Canadian citizens in terms of responsibility and duty, as well as rights. Somewhere along the line the concept of civic responsibility, which should carry the same weight as citizen rights, apparently vanished in the mists of time. I think this concept needs to reappear and be defined in Canadian terms. I may be wrong however, I believe that for many people the ability to actually participate in the process will encourage them to become more knowledgable. If you feel you have no real say in the nation's direction, as is apparently the case for many today, why should you bother to pay attention? I think the educational system can help, and that students may be more interested in learning about how they can, or are expected, to contribute than may be the case for learning about the first, second reading of a bill in a process that most will likely never see, much less be a part of as active participants. We wouldn't be replacing the current system with a totally new mechanism, we'd just be cutting out the middle people, or redefining their role and method of selection. The day to day business of the country is conducted by the public service, rather than politicians, and this would stay intact to the extent that the services are required at a national level. Don't get me wrong, I don't think direct democracy would be easy to implement or that it will solve all our problems. However, I think that it is what democracy was, for better or worse, meant to be, and that as such should be striven for. I also am dubious as to whether the goals sought by this site will be achieved working with with the current process, whether enhanced by PR or not, primarily because it the governments that arise from that process have refused to address, or lack the will or competence to resolve, these and other significant issues that have faced Canada for the past forty years. I really appreciate your feedback and your support in helping to forward this discussion, which will hopefully generate a lot of innovative thoughts. I'm not sure how we could 'pilot' the concept at Vive, but will give it some thought and am very open to suggestions.

Whoops, Samuel's post was moved after I started mine, so my initial comment is now irrelevant. I'm a terribly slow typist.

Direct democracy is a very bad idea. The electorate just doesn't have the expertise to make informed decisions on each and every issue. It's alot like being your own doctor.

That may be true however, it is also true of many representatives elected to parliament. One thing I've noticed in some of the threads is that many don't seem to have a lot of confidence in the knowledge and ability of the citizenry in general. While that may be based on fact, it seems a bit at odds with a site which supports the grassroots democracy concept. Either you have faith that citizens will if given a real opportunity try to the best of their ability to participate, or you might as well flush democracy down the tubes or start enfranchising people on the basis of their having an IQ over 100 or so. However, truth told the contributions of 'the best and the brightest' haven't always left countries better or brighter. I think much of the problem is due to people just losing interest and giving up, or feeling that they don't have a real role to play in the nation's decision making process. To some extent, I think this is welcomed by government because docile, uninterested people tend to just accept what their told or given without making waves. Given that western democracies should have the best educated populations in the history, I'd prefer to believe that most citizens have the ability to step up to the plate if given the chance and the proper tools to work with.

It's impossible for the average citizen to keep themselves well enough informed to make the best decision on such a large range of issues. One just does not have time.

Direct Democracy (DD) could work for certain problems amongst the many problems that the "Indirect Democracy" has not been able to solve. Groups that are focused are likely to be most effective and we really should not expect everyone to decide on everything. You may remember that not all that long ago the state was run by a small meritocracy and perhaps this approach does make sense afterall. As mentionned earlier, many local politics matters have been solved by the People getting involved on issues that matters to them. The growth of NGOs to perform functions traditionally performed by the state is an other example. I can certainly see this south of the border in light of the bankrupt state of many of their federal, state and municipality infrastructures. For instance, the Sierra Club NGO has taken on what the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)used to do. So they end up fighting perhaps more effectively the special interest groups (aka polluters) than what the EPA was doing. What is at stake in this case is quite serious: environmental degradation. I am also seeing this with the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that is gradually withdrawing from regulating telecommunications and letting more focused groups deal with real telecommunication issues. What is at stake once again is huge and in a nutshell I will point out that the Americans are seriously falling behind on broadband deployment. As a result, their NGOs are getting a whole lot more involved everywhere where their governments are failing, often due to major budget slashes and privatization ideology. I would argue that DD is further ahead in the USA than it is here as a result of mainly privatization and its threats. The biggest impediment to DD in Canada is our federal and provincial bureaucracies. A very disturbing trend I have noticed is that if you need a service from your federal (or provincial) government, you may end up being told that you really should go through your MP often overwhelmed himself by this bureaucracy. You will otherwise often end up being bounced among many groups with conflicting mandates. There are typically no Customer metrics focus (e.g. turn-around time, satisfaction survey, escalation mechanism, etc...). As far as I can tell, staff are not evaluated or promoted on the basis of the feedback on the services they provide to the public. Newcomer staff will be keen eager beaver at first but will soon realise that busting one's behind is really not necessary -vs- political correctness, for instance. If we are going to keep our state bureaucracy (and not fall into the ideology of privatization of everything), we need to make the bureaucracy much more effective and accountable. The monopoly environment in which they generally operate is not healthy. I could imagine an NGO "Direct Democracy" effort focused on "Bureaucracy under watch" monitoring performance of the key bureaucracies getting in our way. Internet media like Vive could be a very effective NGO tool to solve that problem. The "Indirect Democracy" has not been able to solve this yet. I am quite sceptical about these "online" government service initiatives and whether they address the real problem bureaucracy areas that we have. This may be worth pursuing in a different thread.