Direct Democracy: A Modest Proposal.
I would like to start by saying I have been doing a lot of thinking on the matter of democratic government - the common, age-old system of representative democracy being my initial starting-point, and how to reform it, for it is undeniably, in so many countries, corrupt, unrepresentative, and self-serving, to a point where so many people in Western societies are thoroughly and abjectly disillusioned with not just the parties and individuals, but the system of government itself. Where people no longer dislike this party, or that party, but regard the entire edifice with suspicion and contempt. As well they should. It would be quite reasonable to suggest that, under siege from an ever-weary, ever-divided public, politicians have edged together, coming closer and closer to a political centre, forming an unmovable schiltrom over the terrain of government, a schiltrom that either destroys, or worse absorbs into it's prickly mass those who engage against it.
The liberal democrats, in my country, were arguably such a force. They waited at the edge of the battlefield, and then, when they had enough men, went to the centre, where the Conservatives and Labour stood, their pikes arrayed in all directions - not merely against one another, but to the outside as well. And, as the Lib's approached, at double time and with every intent on crashing into the meleé, both sides, instead of making to resist them, threw open their arms and said "Come! Help us defeat our hated foe!"
Sorry for the poor analogy, but that's the closest comparison to the political battleground I can think. Two massive forces push and drive into each other in a stalemate. Some gain more men at any one time than others, some lose some, sometimes one side drives the other back. A third came, however, and would have ended the battle, but instead of a shattering charge, they simply joined the other side, and were absorbed into the grinding, wearying meleé that has so worn down the British nation.
The same can be said of Ron Paul and his libertarians. While less significant than the Liberal Democrats in terms of the percentage of the electorate, they to represented a growing interest, of those disillusioned with the two conventional parties. And they to, were absorbed, by the 'Tea Party', and became just another facet of the Republican Party.
So, we may conclude that the battle can not be won. It will grind on until the end of time, faction against faction, until we are all so exhausted and worn that our fates are decided not by the push of the mass, but by champions, like the Celts of old.
My suggestion?
Direct Democracy. We have the technology. What percent of the UK, or the US, is on Facebook? How many million? All uploading vast quantities of data - pictures, videos, etc. Could we not do the same for government?
You have one website. www.parliament.gov.uk, but now, instead of just a frontpage, you can actually vote on matters! It's a political forum for every man and woman in this country.
But, here's the kicker. Instead of paying £80,000 PA, plus expenses, to 500+ MP's, the people who vote on this are you. You, me, everyone. The entire eligible population of the British Isles, submitting and voting on the legislation that rules their everyday lives.
But what about people who don't vote? Decisions are made by those who show up. If you're not interested in an issue, you're under no obligation to express that interest, no obligation to vote, and no obligation to read about it. Just like now, only, if you do care, and you do want to be involved in governing your own nation, you can read it, and you can directly influence whether it gets through parliament or not.
This is the ultimate devolution of power. Power to the people.
What about decisive decision-making?
Retain the executive. We can have a PM, and a cabinet, and indeed a civil service and all the trappings of society. Same issue here.
Who will submit legislation: Well....everyone. I would suggest a £100-£200 fee for doing so (to discourage frivolous legislation), and that to do so, you would have to hand in the legislation yourself, by hand, at the capital, or send a representative to do so. After that, the only person who may amend or alter that bill is you (though people may obviously request you to do that, though those requests would be screened for hate mail and so on). A new sub-forum is then created on the government website, for discussion of various aspects of the bill. The bill can be up for a minimum of 1 month, and after that, the individual posting it will decide when to put it to a vote. Voting will take place across an additional week, on a simple Yay/Nay basis. The votes will be tallied electronically.
Any bill passed will be ratified by both the executive and the legislative branch, as per normal.
Who will vote: Anyone eligible to vote, as of now, will be able to create a profile on the government website. This will require a fair amount of personal information. Any person either defrauding the government, or selling information, or otherwise knowingly abusing the democratic right of the British people, would be sentenced to lifetime in prison, without parole.
Voting will also be suspended over December and 2 weeks into January, but will otherwise remain open.
Tyranny of the majority: A constitution, amendable by only a 2/3rds majority of votes, is a good idea here, assuring freedoms for everyone - lots of personal freedoms.
Originally Posted by Denny Crane!
Reply With Quote
