BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Legislation by post

  
 
Brigade du jour
11:21 / 18.03.05
I'd like to preface all this by pointing out the following:

1. I came up with this idea while working on a sitcom idea.
2. I know precious little about politics generally, let alone the machinations of Westminster.
3. This thread's going to make me look really stupid isn't it?

Anyway, I was reading the House of Lords thread and it reminded me of the idea that perhaps a better way to approve legislation suggested by the Commons would be simply to send every Bill by mail to every person in Britain, and have them Aye or Nay by return of post, thus exposing it to some personal democratic analysis by voter rather than just by representative.

A couple of obvious problems leap instantly to mind - surely not everybody's going to bother voting on every single piece of legislation, blimey there must be loads of 'em. Well that's true, but this way it depends at least partly on how much you want to get involved in the political process. Seems to at least ameliorate the ostracism most people seem to feel from the workings of what is supposed to be 'their' government.

Also, of course, it's going to be rather expensive, isn't it? Well yes, but how much money is spent on the monarchy and the peers at the moment? Millions upon millions? I'm simply suggesting a re-direction of funds so that they improve the Royal Mail beyond all recognition. Suddenly Postie might wield the power of Alistair Campbell himself!

It'd be grand if any Barbelovelies could pick all this apart, point out any glaring inconsistencies, which I'm sure must be legion.

By the way, I'm sure someone else has thought of this before, probably even started an appropriate thread way back in the mists of Barbelith, but it looks like not for a while, so hey.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
11:36 / 18.03.05
Please, I wouldn't trust my friends to think logically and vote properly on legislation- never mind a complete stranger.
 
 
Spaniel
12:05 / 18.03.05
Bloody ridiculous idea.
 
 
sleazenation
12:29 / 18.03.05
Prohibitively expensive and complicated - would slow the decision making process even further... let alone problems with getting people to actually read the bills and understand their implications...
 
 
Spaniel
12:48 / 18.03.05
Current stats suggest that one in five people do not have the numeracy or literacy skills required on an 11-year-old.

Having worked for a trade union education programme for the last year and a half - with a particular focus on basic skills - my feeling is that the above is a conservative estimate.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:52 / 18.03.05
Apart from all that- and I can see the attraction in EVERYBODY getting a say on legislation, but I'd agree with Nina (possibly even go a little further and admit that I really wouldn't trust MYSELF on such matters... I believe this is why I pay people to do it for me)- postal voting hasn't exactly proved a rip-roaring success thus far, even on the limited scale we have it now...
 
 
Brigade du jour
17:43 / 18.03.05
Fair enough, all.

It was something of a democrat's wet dream conceived in a moment of infantile idealism, I grant you.
 
 
Triplets
01:43 / 20.03.05
Bloody optimistic idealist! How dare you think good about the people!
 
 
Brigade du jour
16:16 / 20.03.05
My wrists have been duly slapped.
 
 
Loomis
10:29 / 21.03.05
In terms of practicality, surely it could be automated? Either by email or by having a website where all people on the electoral roll are given a password and they can log in and vote, with the results being tallied automatically. If we're only talking about a yes/no vote then it wouldn't need to be particularly sophisticated. Of course there is the danger of the system being hacked, but there you go.
 
 
Spaniel
11:50 / 21.03.05
But who cares about whether or not it could be done? It's a flawed idea.
 
 
lord henry strikes back
13:32 / 21.03.05
Loomis, you evil genius you. What you are proposing would amount to one of the greatest acts of gerrymandering in history. Under your web-based system large chunks of society, the techno-phobes, those without easy and regular access to the internet, not to mention a large number of the elderly, would be disenfranchised overnight. A technocratic coup by the back door.

An idea with a few merits, but not entirely in keeping with the spirit of democracy.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
17:15 / 21.03.05
Looking to Mark Millar for wisdom is always a bad idea but in The Authority he had the whole world wired up in their brains to vote. That would be kinda neat, though probably people would hack it to download porn all the time.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
22:02 / 21.03.05
had the whole world wired up in their brains

And ID cards- sorry, entitlement cards- aren't enough of an affront to our civil liberties?
 
 
madhatter
08:41 / 22.03.05
never mind the internet modification - i actually like that the idea of *everybody* being able to acess to public decisionmaking.

by no means i believe that all the people are ready for it (including myself & my friends)...BUT if there was a way to include one vote for everybody that cannot be rigged - there would be a NECESSITY for us to develop the needed abilitys to analyse a proposed law towards its implications.

i do indeed know the standard of the reading abilities amongst what they once called "the working class" (being grown up in a pauper industrial quarter). but i fail to see the point, because, you know, as example, almost everybody develops sufficient abilities to get a drivers license & drive, because so much of our daily lives depend on it - although it takes one hell of concentration, coordination, clear-mindedness et cet.

so: given the need - no more lame excuses possible for giving away the control over our lives to some powerhungry wannabe-alpha-dogs - the abilities will, i recon, follow.

there is, for example, the thing they have going down in chiapas, mexico (at least, what little i know about): since the guerilla-controlled regions have *relative* peace with the governement fox, they try to get everybody into one legislative position for some months, so that everybody knows what it is like. AND the "governement" can do nothing against the vote of the villages, which works fairly democratic & includes everyone.

it is not the perfect state, and neither is switzerland, where they have that direct democratic legislation on some smaller scale, BUT: i do think we have, in the long run, only two alternatives: becoming self-aware social & responsible beings, OR selling out to - in our case - some european-union-lobbyists.

therefore, the postal thing seems like one step in the right direction to me. not the only possible first step, and not necessarily the best one, but in the right direction anyway. i am more interested in looking for other means to the end of making us truly responsible for our lives.
 
 
lord henry strikes back
11:19 / 22.03.05
Madhatter, I don't quite follow your reasoning. As it stands we all have the right to a level of participation in the political process and yet we choose not to educate ourselves as to anything more than the most basic political realities. What makes you think that asking people to vote more often would change this tendency?

I think it's interesting that you mentioned people putting in the effort to gain a driving license. People don't do this because they have the opportunity to drive a feel that it might be a good idea to know how to do so. On the contrary, society demands that people prove, through means of a test, that the are safe to drive before we allow them behind the wheel. By extension of this logic, far from opening up access to the political process, we should be demanding that people prove that they are politically knowledgeable before we let them play any part what-so-ever. Surely, if it is to be worth anything at all, a vote in the wrong hands could be far more dangerous than a car.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
12:52 / 22.03.05
i do indeed know the standard of the reading abilities amongst what they once called "the working class" (being grown up in a pauper industrial quarter). but i fail to see the point, because, you know, as example, almost everybody develops sufficient abilities to get a drivers license & drive

But that is totally beside the point. Would I trust a single UKIP voter to look at a law from an objective and socially reasonable perspective? No. Would I trust someone who is pro-life to look at a law that has moral implications from a social perspective ie. the number of orphanages and unwanted children? Hell no. Would I expect people to be able to vote on human rights legislation, to ban battery farms or not ban battery farms? I wouldn't trust myself on that last point. I'd vote to eliminate battery farms even if it totally screwed up the economy and I was guaranteed to lose my job. Reading isn't even the beginning of the problems with this idea.
 
 
madhatter
16:07 / 22.03.05
sorry for unclear thinking/writing.

my point is: in NEED, we develop ABILITIES:
need of a drivers license - ability to pass the tests
need to get the job of legislation done properly - ability to understand & articulate political contents

as i understand it, direct democracy (or a form of it just to countercheck the elected representatives) would very soon lead to the point where the big structures (states) prove too complex to understand totally. therefore, one of two things would happen:

(a) something a lot like the one they tell us we have (elected representatives et cet.) but with one big difference: nobody thinks about corrupt persons in power as "thats the way it is", but instead, they percieve that stuff as "what we allow to happen and therefore can change any time we like"...

(b) reduction of the governed world to smaller structures such that one collective can easily understand: one factory, one school, one town. this option would heavyly depend on spontanous, mutual, personal help.

as far as i am concerned, it is - for our question - not important if the people want the "right thing". if they indeed get what they said they wanted, utter bullshit or reasonable, they can begin to study the impact of what they choose on their daily lives.

before, they - and that means WE - cannot begin to talk about how things should be done, because before, we just guess or believe.
 
 
lord henry strikes back
19:05 / 22.03.05
Madhatter, thank you for clarifying you argument. I would like to pick up on a few points:

I agree with your assertion that the form of direct democracy being proposed would lead to a situation where the structures concerned would become too complex. However, I have problems with both of the options that you suggest.

(a) I fail to see how this is any different from the current situation, on two grounds. First, I don't believe that many people see curruption as "that's the way it is". When corruption becomes obvious within a government they tend to be forced into a corner and unable to talk about anything else. Let us not forget get that 'sleaze' was a major (forgive the pun) factor in the removal of the tories in 1997. Second, as soon as any form of representative begins to act on the peoples behalf they take on a position of power. Unless the electorate spend as much time and energy looking into the issues as the representatives themselves (and this they cannot do for the reasons of complexity covered above) the reps begin to act as an information filter. This allows them, up to a point, to cover their actions and we are back to where we started.

(b) What you are suggesting here is a form of centralised democracy. The problem with this is that their is no way to deal with macro issues. It becomes impossible to organise and economy, a national health service, an armed forces etc. The only real way to achieve national leadership under this setup is to construct layers: each factory selects a representative who sits on a council of local factories, who in tern select a representative to sit on a local general council, and so on up to the up to a national general council which makes decisions on a national scale. This actually compounds the problem by separating the people on the ground even further from those in real power.

Finally, I agree that the point of democracy is 'rule by the people' and not 'good rule', and what the people want, they get, however stupid. However, where does that leave minorities? If we are looking at direct democracy as a second, legislative body, I feel that this would put massive pressure on governments facing re-election to move towards populist, and away from general, appeal. As the likes of the tories and UKIP have shown, launching an attack on minorities can get a good number of people whipped up, more than enough to get a majority and have the legislation passed. Throw your average Sun reader a 'get rid of all the darkies' bill to which they can all shout yes, and they will be far more likely to re-elect you when the time comes. The 'tyrrany of the majority' would be more powerful than ever.
 
 
sleazenation
20:20 / 22.03.05
my point is: in NEED, we develop ABILITIES:
need of a drivers license - ability to pass the tests
need to get the job of legislation done properly - ability to understand & articulate political contents


Actually I disagree the above for a number of reasons.

Firstly, I think you are missing an important stage out in the process of gaining abilities; working hard to achieve your aim. Not everyone is willing to put in the necessary effort to achieve their aims. Nor do people have infinite time to work hard at achieving their aims. This therefore leads many to prioritize their aims. And no-one achieves everything they set out to do in their lives.

Secondly I disagree that the need to drive a car and the need for a fully representative and inclusive functioning democracy are even remotely analogous. Without a driving licence one cannot drive a car, a lack of a fully representative and inclusive functioning democracy does not necessarily prevent the average citizen from doing anything. Thus, coming back to my first point, people may well feel that they need not put the necessary effort to become politically literate…
 
 
Andek Niemand
11:15 / 23.03.05
This is a great thread. I would add few comments, except that madhatter and lord henry wotton have already expressed almost all the pros and cons I thought about.

I work sometimes as a temp teacher, and this particular argument about representative versus direct democracy is always very popular, and can make even the meekest 14-15 year old kids into veritable political theoricists

But I had a point in this post, too: In Sweden a group called Demoex (Demokratiexperiment) started an interesting project: they formed their own political party in the communal elections and got one representative into the Council. The representative, however, does not vote according to her own opinions, but the local people can decide how she will vote, using an Internet web page (www.demoex.net).

As I understand it, the project has worked fairly well, but there have been some problems, as predicted on this thread. Notably, not all the people have access to the internet and therefore can't participate. Also, it seems that fairly small group of people are willing to cast their Internet votes. However, the voting has not become populist, even when unpleasant things (raising the communal tax rate etc.) have come up. The "people" seem to be able to understand the complex political issues and further accept that sometimes hard decisions have to be made. Of course, in this "the people", as mentioned above, refers only to quite small percentage of the population.

Perhaps then a direct democracy or "postal voting" would lead into a new kind of oligarchy. It would, however be an open oligarchy, where anybody could join in, if they had enough energy and/or spare time.
 
 
Tryphena Absent
08:16 / 24.03.05
Of course, in this "the people", as mentioned above, refers only to quite small percentage of the population.

Yes, people who are directly interested in the process. And this representative seems very honorable but what happens when the vote goes for something so utterly repulsive that she goes home and cries afterwards? I would if I had to vote for the Iraq war, fox hunting, the terror legislation, foundation hospitals, tuition and top up fees... but of course I think democracy is a grossly over-rated system.
 
  
Add Your Reply