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.
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.