Hybrid democracy

[AdamEve]

I wonder if I could share my view on how representative democracy could be modified to resemble more to pure democracy.
Idea is to use modern communication technologies to allow people to have direct vote on political issues.
I call this system hybrid democracy.
Depending on how active people are, such system can either become pure representative democracy (if people decide not to cast direct votes) or pure democracy (if people decide to cast direct votes on every single issue).
Idea goes like this.

During election day person can register itself that he wants to be represented by politician A. This is not anonymous.
Or he can go to election site and anonymously cast a vote that he wants to be represented by politician A by placing that white paper with politician A name circled and placing paper in the big white box.

Lets say that 50 people anonymously selected to be represented by politician A.
Lets say that other 50 people registered to be represented by politician A.

Now when that politician A rises his hand during voting procedure on some law his hand is worth 100 votes.
If some of the registered persons decides that this is not in his interest he can login into web voting site and directly cast his vote on the issue therefore refusing to be represented by this politician on this specific subject.
Because of this, hand of politician A during this specific voting procedure is now worth only 99 votes.
If all 50 registered people decline that politician A should represent them on this specific issue that would mean that his hand would be worth remaining 50 votes of those that anonymously selected him.

If politician goes corrupt person could also unregister from politician A meaning that his hand is then worth -1 vote even if that person doesn't go to web voting site for any of the subsequent voting procedures.
Person could also re-register to any other politician at any given time if he decides that his interests would be better protected this way. This way politicians would be demotivated to do whatever they want until the next elections.

This way politician would feel motivated to work in the interest of their voters because otherwise people could unregister from him thereby decreasing influence of that politician by decreasing his worth in votes. Corrupt politicians can be completely neutralized this way since they would loose voting power.
This way people could exercise their ability of direct voting for really important issues without having to turn into full time politicians like it is the case in pure democracy.

Second principal is to increase influence of referendum by making it cheap and fast through internet so that anyone can propose anything they like and proposels that get enough votes must be included into law as is the case with referendum. Problem with todays referendum is that people can only prevent certain law but not propose new ones. Current referenudm is also very expensive so it is basicly never used. But I think that bigger time frame should be given for each proposal so that issue can be discussed on forums, TV, radio, newspapers and in direct comunication.

Third principal would be what you are currently fighting for and that is that most data should be public. You as tax payer should be informed how tax payers money is spend. Goverment institutions should tell month in advance their itention to spend money for something so that public could have time to react. Info on their paycheck and every other additonal expense they make ahould be documented on the web.

 

[niceguy]

Referendums are also hated by politicians and thus only instigated when they are fairly sure that people will vote "correctly". Sometimes however, something happens between when the referendum are decided upon and actually held, allowing the people to vote "wrong".

After a referndum like that politicans will commonly complain about how wrong people have voted and the delays this will cause, like after the Swedish referendum about assuming the Euro as currency and the people misvoted against this. This mistake have saved Sweden a lot of headache lately in the current Euro crisis but still, we swedes voted wrong.

This risk of public "misvoting" is why it is politically impossible to get your suggested system to be introduced. It would wrestle the powers out of the hands of the current rulers and into the people. Those in power do not like that. Nothing short of a revolution can introduce this system. There are anti terrorism laws to protect against revolutions.

 

[Mathematician]

I like.

 

[AdamEve]

Nothing short of a revolution can introduce this system

You mean like what is going on currently across the globe?
This is either start of revolution which will give us direct democracy or begining of world war 3.
I guess those in power just need to organize few executions, blame others or terorists until everybody starts attacking each other.
People are easily perswaded to go to war.
Church might help.

 

[Spirited]

I've been thinking about this exact same thing actually. I had some other points to add though as well!

In South Korea, they have a system of electronic identification number, which is basically a social security number that people use to subscribe to things online. This means that there is 100% accountability for anything that you do online if it requests to see your number. This isn't a violation of privacy, because one can choose not to give their number and simply not use the services provided, it is never forced.

If we had that same system in place, we could have an online voting system with no risk of "Acorn-like" worst case scenarios occurring. No dead people voting or people voting twice, it's actually EASIER to account for this than for our current system, and it would also be cheaper. This would allow us to absolutely abolish the electoral system, and take some power back from congress. We would still need people who's full-time job was writing legislation and trying to solve problems, but they couldn't pass any insanely bs laws under the radar.

This could also allow for people who later wanted to become politicians to have a visual voting record to start their career with. "Who did you support when you were 20?", it's all there, "did you support Obama Care", all there again. Candidates who had exceptionally high similarities with the majority of people would most reflect their interests, and thus most be trusted to write useful legislation that pertains to their needs and wants.

Most importantly, this system would motivate people (or could even be setup to force people) to read bills before voting. It would also push lawmakers to put their legislation in more legible, layman terms.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I wonder if I could share my view on how representative democracy could be modified to resemble more to pure democracy. ...

Give me a sense of how you think this would play our on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

 

[Spirited]

Give me a sense of how you think this would play our on issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage.

It's really impossible to say how that would play. Many people would vote in a polarized fashion, and many would think out the issues. The truth, however, is that these arn't actually political issues at all and it's possible that a better system could be put in place to separate ethical law from economic law. The notion that I have to vote democrat to support ethical issues and vote republican to support the economic system I like is a little silly (not that that is reflective of my stances, just an example).

The people would decide, as was intended for America in the first place.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The people would decide, as was intended for America in the first place.

What was "intended for America in the first place" was safeguards against the tyranny of the majority.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

The proposal strikes me as one that seeks to reduce the political representative to the status of messenger/lacky - the perfect lowest-common-denominator democracy that would have crushed the Civil Rights Bill. I'm not a big fan.

 

[Tarheeler]

Direct democracy isn't a very stable government model; outside of very small homogeneous units it often results in mob rule and completely ignores the minority. And whether it is done through referendums or direct voting on-line (which would completely leave anyone without internet access unable to participate), it would leave us with the possibility of constantly shifting policy goals and a government rendered completely ineffective by voter indecisiveness.

As far as each representative having a number of votes based on his "followers" and those people being able to shift their allegiance at will, I think that Congress would become even more inefficient and bogged down. Not only would officials have to worry about performing their legitimate functions, but they would also have to spend considerable time in constantly courting voters and protecting their base from other representatives. The election cycle would last all year. And the threat of losing votes is already a consideration for elected representatives. If their constituents aren't happy with their performance, they have the ability to replace them with someone else.

I'm all for making our political systems more effective and efficient. I'm a big supporter of proportional representation and an electoral system that encourages representatives who are responsive and competent. But I don't think this system would do either.

 

[Spirited]

Direct democracy isn't a very stable government model; outside of very small homogeneous units it often results in mob rule and completely ignores the minority. And whether it is done through referendums or direct voting on-line (which would completely leave anyone without internet access unable to participate), it would leave us with the possibility of constantly shifting policy goals and a government rendered completely ineffective by voter indecisiveness.

As far as each representative having a number of votes based on his "followers" and those people being able to shift their allegiance at will, I think that Congress would become even more inefficient and bogged down. Not only would officials have to worry about performing their legitimate functions, but they would also have to spend considerable time in constantly courting voters and protecting their base from other representatives. The election cycle would last all year. And the threat of losing votes is already a consideration for elected representatives. If their constituents aren't happy with their performance, they have the ability to replace them with someone else.

I'm all for making our political systems more effective and efficient. I'm a big supporter of proportional representation and an electoral system that encourages representatives who are responsive and competent. But I don't think this system would do either.

Why try to find someone who most closely represents your opinion if you can just express it yourself? That's the whole goal. A true democracy or republic on this scale has never been attempted, so it's pretty unfair to say that "it's not a stable government model". As for the civil rights comment above, that issue was a little bit different as African Americans not being able to vote makes it obviously slanted against them. Now that every human being - other than convicted felons - has the right to vote in America, it will be much more stable. At any rate, it's not as if the politicians we have are doing anything even a brain-dead mob couldn't do better.

 

[Tarheeler]

Why try to find someone who most closely represents your opinion if you can just express it yourself? That's the whole goal.

That's an admirable goal. And, theoretically speaking, it would be the ideal solution. But in the real world it just isn't an effective political structure.

A true democracy or republic on this scale has never been attempted, so it's pretty unfair to say that "it's not a stable government model".

Actually, it's very fair assessment. Direct democracy has been tried for thousands of years and in a variety of settings, from small groups to entire nations. And, as I stated in my first post, it has only been an effective form of governance with small homogeneous groups. Even in a national setting, such as ancient Athens, it was only stable when a very small portion of the population (Athenian citizens who owned property) was in control.

As for the civil rights comment above, that issue was a little bit different as African Americans not being able to vote makes it obviously slanted against them. Now that every human being - other than convicted felons - has the right to vote in America, it will be much more stable.

My only comment regarding voting had nothing to do with the Civil Rights Act. In the OP, the internet is a requirement for participation in the system. While the US does has extensive coverage, there are still many people who lack access to it; this system automatically bars them from voicing their opinion.

As for my comments about civil rights, direct democracy has often been termed "the tyranny of the majority" for a reason. The recent Proposition 8 in California is a prime example. Voters, acting through direct democracy in the form of a referendum, voted to strip a minority group of their rights. And this type of situation has been consistent throughout history.

At any rate, it's not as if the politicians we have are doing anything even a brain-dead mob couldn't do better.

I'll be the first to say that our current system has some serious flaws. But replacing a body of 535 decision makers with a body of over 200 million seems to be a very irresponsible decision that would cause our government to stall and become completely stagnant. Imagine 200 million people proposing laws, suggesting amendments, arguing over language, and cutting deals. It definitely isn't my idea of an effective and responsive government.

 

[gnomon]

I wonder if I could share my view on how representative democracy could be modified to resemble more to pure democracy.
Idea is to use modern communication technologies to allow people to have direct vote on political issues.
I call this system hybrid democracy.
Depending on how active people are, such system can either become pure representative democracy (if people decide not to cast direct votes) or pure democracy (if people decide to cast direct votes on every single issue).
Idea goes like this.

During election day person can register itself that he wants to be represented by politician A. This is not anonymous.
Or he can go to election site and anonymously cast a vote that he wants to be represented by politician A by placing that white paper with politician A name circled and placing paper in the big white box.

Lets say that 50 people anonymously selected to be represented by politician A.
Lets say that other 50 people registered to be represented by politician A.

Now when that politician A rises his hand during voting procedure on some law his hand is worth 100 votes.
If some of the registered persons decides that this is not in his interest he can login into web voting site and directly cast his vote on the issue therefore refusing to be represented by this politician on this specific subject.
Because of this, hand of politician A during this specific voting procedure is now worth only 99 votes.
If all 50 registered people decline that politician A should represent them on this specific issue that would mean that his hand would be worth remaining 50 votes of those that anonymously selected him.

If politician goes corrupt person could also unregister from politician A meaning that his hand is then worth -1 vote even if that person doesn't go to web voting site for any of the subsequent voting procedures.
Person could also re-register to any other politician at any given time if he decides that his interests would be better protected this way. This way politicians would be demotivated to do whatever they want until the next elections.

This way politician would feel motivated to work in the interest of their voters because otherwise people could unregister from him thereby decreasing influence of that politician by decreasing his worth in votes. Corrupt politicians can be completely neutralized this way since they would loose voting power.
This way people could exercise their ability of direct voting for really important issues without having to turn into full time politicians like it is the case in pure democracy.

Second principal is to increase influence of referendum by making it cheap and fast through internet so that anyone can propose anything they like and proposels that get enough votes must be included into law as is the case with referendum. Problem with todays referendum is that people can only prevent certain law but not propose new ones. Current referenudm is also very expensive so it is basicly never used. But I think that bigger time frame should be given for each proposal so that issue can be discussed on forums, TV, radio, newspapers and in direct comunication.

Third principal would be what you are currently fighting for and that is that most data should be public. You as tax payer should be informed how tax payers money is spend. Goverment institutions should tell month in advance their itention to spend money for something so that public could have time to react. Info on their paycheck and every other additonal expense they make ahould be documented on the web.

No thanks.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Giving people too much voice in determining public policy is a bad idea.

 

[AdamEve]

In the OP, the internet is a requirement for participation in the system. While the US does has extensive coverage, there are still many people who lack access to it; this system automatically bars them from voicing their opinion.

Are you forgeting that now only 300 hundred or so polititions make all decisions? Hybeid democracy would allow more people to participate. They could also vote by SMS texting, phone calls, internet was just an examole. You could register your mobile phone, send SMS on certain number, enter law id followed by yes or no. In some countriws there are more phones then people

As for my comments about civil rights, direct democracy has often been termed "the tyranny of the majority" for a reason. The recent Proposition 8 in California is a prime example. Voters, acting through direct democracy in the form of a referendum, voted to strip a minority group of their rights. And this type of situation has been consistent throughout history..

Minoroties would be protected just like they are now in liberal democraciws. Majority could not vote that certain group should leave country or be forbiden to exercise their religion. Basic human rights of all groups woild be protected.

 

[Tarheeler]

Are you forgeting that now only 300 hundred or so polititions make all decisions? Hybeid democracy would allow more people to participate. They could also vote by SMS texting, phone calls, internet was just an examole. You could register your mobile phone, send SMS on certain number, enter law id followed by yes or no. In some countriws there are more phones then people

And not everyone has access to that technology. As for exchanging 535 politicians for 200 million, I already covered that.

Minoroties would be protected just like they are now in liberal democraciws. Majority could not vote that certain group should leave country or be forbiden to exercise their religion. Basic human rights of all groups woild be protected.

Only until the majority decides to change it.

Even in modern representative democracies minorities are denied equal rights; just how much worse would it be when the majority has the ability to create law without a viable opposition?

 

[Viker]

I like the system the way it is now.

What you're proposing reminds me exactly of what Franklin had to say about majoritism.

"...two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for dinner"

What we have amounts to:

"a well armed lamb contesting that vote."

People may not like what's going on on Washington now a days but we can use what we have to fix that.

 

[Viker]

In some countriws there are more phones then people

You don't see a technical problem there or do you?

 

[McBell]

In some countriws there are more phones then people

How do you propose to regulate this?
How do you know that the person who registered the phone even exists?

Minoroties would be protected just like they are now in liberal democraciws. Majority could not vote that certain group should leave country or be forbiden to exercise their religion. Basic human rights of all groups woild be protected.

Unless it actually got on the ballot...
Remember Prop 8?

 

[AdamEve]

How do you propose to regulate this?
How do you know that the person who registered the phone even exists?

Technology is already here, it is just being used for different purposes.
How does a bank knows that you are there when you pay something with a phone using your registered credit card?
There are many different ways how you could register yourself for certain service?
There are many different ways how you can use certain service.
There are many different ways how you can authenticate yourself for certain service.

You could go to police, identify yourself and then regiter you phone number or receive user/password so thath you can use any phone, or receive token, or ....

Whatever majority can decide in hybrid democracy, party can decide in representative democracy. Today we could all give our votes to some right wing party with some radical ideas. Protection against those ideas would be the same as it is today. There is no difference in what people could theoreticly vote upon in these two systems.