The Simple Answer To The Crisis: Replace Voter Democracy With E-Vote
72
The current economic meltdown has caused much weeping and gnashing of teeth much of it centered around the debate of whether the very essence of our democracy, Free Enterprise, has failed us.
In my How The Socialist States Of America Fell Off The Wagoner and Why Does Socialism Always Fail? Hubs, I explain that the crisis was not an essential flaw in the Free Enterprise system, but an administrative and bureaucratic breakdown in the Bush Administration's criminal apathy and distraction in failing to ensure that the relevant US agencies enforced the pertinent and applicable laws and regulations to keep the Subprime greed-merchants from demolishing the economy of the planet. However, there is an ideological debate incorporated within this issue which is difficult to evade: Has Democracy Failed Us?
My answer, in short, is yes.
Our current system of democratic representation is a creaky outdated antique which has no more relevance to the 21st century as the horse and buggy or the cotton gin.
Let's analyze why we have the democratic system that we do. It is the latter half of the 18th century: The founding fathers of the United States of America are structuring a system of government to replace the British monarchist rule present in the 13 Colonies. Although Britain has a Parliament, the rule of the King is paramount and can overrule Parliament at any time, and thus is fully unacceptable to the new, egalitarian Americans.
The founding fathers realize that the widespread population of the young country is spread out all over the eastern seaboard, thus the methods of representation of the citizen which are possible in the much smaller nations of the Old World cannot be applied to the new, enormous country. Therefore, it is decided that each community or zone would elect representatives to the U.S. Congress, who would then travel to Washington, D.C. and for four years vote on legislative bills depending on their understanding of the opinions of their constituents. After all, it would be quite impractical to have every citizen vote on every bill and then send the slips of paper to Washington on horseback!
There is nothing wrong with this concept of democracy. If you're in the 18th century. However, we're not.
Right now I can click on a webcam to show me exactly what is going on right now the main street in my mom's hometown in Italy; I can get a live news report on the launching of a missile in North Korea; I can communicate to a friend in Australia how much I miss kangaroo stew. All of these events are in real time and instantaneous at the speed of light which separate me from Rome, Pyongyang, or Sydney by about 1/20th of a second.
Unfortunately, every American citizen is still separated from Washington, D.C. by a couple of centuries.
We still trudge in the snow and rain to a building and stand in line to put a mark on a piece of paper.
Er... exactly why?
The critical mass of computer usage in America certainly has now reached the level where the majority of Americans are comfortable using the internet. The ones who are not, can certainly use a phone or letter mail! Certainly anyone who can visit a polling place also knows how to send a postcard! So why are we still electing representatives to (mis)-represent us for four years. The only truly significant act they perform in Congress is voting on legislative bills on our behalf. Why? Why should they vote on my behalf? Why can't I vote on my behalf?
There is no reason to be represented. I have an opinion on various legislative bills. I want my vote to be applied to those bills as I see fit. Why should some politician take that power away from me and usurp it for themselves?
No reason at all. Not in the 21st century.
After studying the various attempts at electronic direct democracy, and learning from the mistakes of the various abortive attempted implementations, I have come up with a "stripped-down" E-Vote process which, IMHO, would essentially solve the basic problem of our democratic system and restore power to where it has always belonged: The voter, not the politician!
Here is the system in a very brief synopsis:
- Go to e-vote.whatever.gov
- Enter your confidential Main Voter Number and password
- You are provided with a Voter Verification Number that is only valid for that week's votes. Mark that number down.
- Vote on every single legislative bill for that week. On each bill you can choose to ABSTAIN to let your Congressman vote for you, override their vote with a NO, or override their vote with a YES.
-
To make sure that your vote isn't stolen or misapplied, the local post office has a board for your zip code with the local Voter Verification Numbers and the way everyone's voted that week.
-
The privacy of the vote is maintained, as not only does no one standing next to you know who AG47DE59NI93KQ02 is, but next week your number will be totally different so that there is no way for anyone to correlate the vote to you in any way.
If Congressman Kendall represents 1,000,000 voters, and his vote on Bill A this week is YES and 200,000 voters overrule him with NO, then his proportional vote is 80% YES, 20% NO. Bills pass or not on individual voter amounts, not Representative's voting numbers.
This can be set up in an even simpler fashion: Let the Representative vote, then you have a week to override them on any bill you want.
Dang. How simple is this entire system? You can let your Representative vote their conscience if you want, and nothing has changed for you. However, you can override their vote on any bill whenever you want to. The whole process would take at most a couple of minutes a week. Computer-illiterate? Use the phone or postal mail.
Don't want to participate? Then don't even bother e-voting. Heck, over two thirds of American registered voters did not vote for Barack Obama for President anyway, so if you don't vote, it's only your loss.
This system is so simple and fool-proof that not only would it completely change democracy the way it is understood around the world, but can be implemented today with negligible cost or upheaval. And it would empower the individual to make their own choices on the issues that matter to them, unlike now when citizens are all just vote-dispensing machines for the politicians to manipulate however they want.
So... what do you think?
Note: This is one of those Hubs which could have easily stretched over 25 separate pages, but I'm keeping this short and sweet to make it easily accessible to all. Should you want to see much more detail, either ask me to elaborate in the Comments, or ask me to write the 25 + other Hubs! I'll be happy to!
CommentsLoading...
Yes, I've clarified that in an edit. Again, I've had to make this superextracondensed to keep it from being a loooooooooooong boring tome nobody could slough through. :)
Huh. Well, thanks for writing this very well written and informative hub. Looks like I've got some thinking to do. Very interesting. I like the idea very much.
I've tried hard to use the K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) rule to come up with a workable and implementable solution. That's where IMHO other electronic direct democracy proponents have failed. They envision massive referenda, replacement of entire legislatures, etc. This is all very simple. If Congress is voting to give General Motors or AIG billions of dollars of my money when it comes time to vote for me, I VOTE FOR ME! Not Rep. Kendall. So if Rep. Kendall has been deluded by the carrot of a non-existent and illusory Chevy Volt and unlike him I can see through the mirage, I CAN SAY DON'T GIVE MY MONEY TO GM, and if enough citizens agree with me, the legislation passes THE WAY WE DECIDE, NOT THE POLITICIANS!
Can any adherent and believer in true democracy oppose such a proposal? I don't think so!
Hal fantastic Idea ! I am so frustrated with our current State of affairs , that I can no longer think straight most of the time . This would truly be a representation of the people and unless lobbyist for big business started paying off voting districts they would be eliminated from the picture .
Thanks! The amount of money that it would take to bribe entire sections of the country is well beyond any feasible expenditure from lobbying groups. This proposal could certainly end the scandal of lobbying forever.
Interesting idea. Call me blond, but I tried your web address. :( It would be nice if were really this simple. I think our forefathers had some wonderful ideas, and one of those was keep the government small. There are very few places of rule that really belong to the government... they just keep overstepping their boundaries.
Fortunently, we do have a voice, and are allowed to use it. We can contact our representatives as often as we want to.
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!"
~ Benjamin Franklin, leader of the American Revolution
"We are a Republican Government. Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of Democracy... It has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity."
~ Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury to George Washington, author of the Federalist Papers
"Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."
~ John Adams, 2nd President of the United States
"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."
~ Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States
"Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.
~ James Madison, 4th President of the United States, Father of the Constitution
"The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived."
~ John Quincy Adams, 6th President of the United States
I am still searching for the exact text from Plato or Socrates about voting to the office the one who promises more pay and less work.
The point? Even if we get ideal representation of the populace will, we are still screwed, because it is exactly this will that is the most dangerous thing...
Can't we choose the president that way as well? No polling booths or out of your town postal votes. If you are an American citizen you can vote from whereever you are so long as you have internet access. Cheaper, more acurate, less fraud, more real. Love it. Let's do it.
Christa Dovel: Sorry about tricking you with that URL! :) I propose, however, that "contacting our representatives" does nothing. Once a politician gets into office they are in the service of the people that helped them get there and the average citizen can contact them until they're blue in the face and nothing much will ever come of it. What politicians don't seem to understand is that THEY WORK FOR US AND NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, and E-voting is by far the best thing that can be done to show them who's the boss!
Misha: Plato's Ship Analogy, perhaps? Regardless, your quotations are superlative and right to the point. However, since the HalMishAya Party's ranks are still standing at 3, it seems that the general population is resisting electing me Halmperor for Life and providing infinite creature comforts and hot and cold running blondes in exchange for my thoughtful, wise, benevolent dictatorship. Therefore, we may be stuck with democracy, and the current system of polling place voting is completely ridiculous in the 21st century.
Jennifer Bhala: Of course E-voting of this type can be extended to any point that the population desires it. It not only can be utilized to choose Representatives and the Executive, but it can also be taken to the agency level. Some previous direct democracy theories have extrapolated that once a form of E-voting is established, it eventually would make politicians themselves obsolete, as after all if the voter is making the legislative decisions what the hell do we need all the politicos for, and all I can say is AMEN TO THAT!
Hal,
Shouldn't you be focused on Canadian politics?
How does E vote do any better a job qualifying who is entitled to vote, like citizens of legal age?
Nah. Canadian politics is way more of a joke than the USA version. We have one party in power which has abandoned every shred of its integrity and fundamental ideological standards on the road to Ottawa, turning its back on its Reform roots and ideals, and we have another party which is so dead set on getting power back that they have entrusted their entire future in the hands of a Canadian who has spent the vast majority of his adult life in the USA! E-voting to replace these bozos would be a dream come true!
E-voters have to be qualified in exactly the same way on the same voter rolls as today, so really no difference.
Hal,
I love it.
No more pork bellies, you vote on the issues only.
My draw back is that it would be a full time job. The TV would be nothing but election ads.
And, don't forget, we are a Republic not a Democracy, which goes along with Misha comments on democracy. "Two wolves and a lamb voting for lunch" Great statement. But I think it would help.
Another problem is, many law would never get passed, which may be a good.
Let disembolish DC!
But you would never get this type of law passed with all the wolves in our system feeding off the government. You want to be rich, get into politics.
Thanks for the hub,
Keep on Hubbing!
In response to what Misha, or rather Benjamin Franklin, had to say: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!" How about we give each lamb a veto?
eovery, I also have a concept to stop the profilgate spending on election TV ads. As part of their FCC license, each station has to allocate to each party a proportionate (to their last vote) and strictly limited amount of airtime FREE. The terms of their FCC license also call for them to not be allowed to accept any PAID ad buys from political parties, lobbyists, etc. There, in one fell swoop, we've eliminated the need for parties to raise billions of dollars through "questionable" fundraising that they shouldn't be doing in the first place.
Aya Katz, I can't give the lamb a veto because they taste so good with mint sauce! :)
LOL Aya, what Hal siad - what veto you are talking about? Who and how will ensure that wolves obey the veto? And if they do, who and how will ensure that lamb does not abuse the veto to the point of starving wolves to death?
Because the wolves won't be able to find the lamb because it will already be on my rotisserie! YUM! :)
Hal, are we all on the same page with this parable? I mean, yes, lamb is delicious, but aren't we the lambs in this story?
Misha, okay, so are we saying there are two kinds of people, predator and prey? Because, last time I checked, it's people who don't like free enterprise who believe it's a dog-eat-dog world!
Granted, but lip-smacking lamb chops aside, E-Voting allows each citizen true equality, regardless of social status or ability to donate to pay off political parties. Today's so called democracy is a shambles and the only "democratic" system that can possibly work is E-Voting. Electing me as a benevolent global dictator aside. :)
Hal, I actually think the benevolent dictator idea might have more of a chance!
Otherwise, how are the lion and lamb going to make peace together? Electronic voting takes care of delayed reactions, but what if the majority of the constituency really wants a free gift at someone else's expense? Shouldn't that someone - whoever it is -- get to veto that idea?
And I will eat the pork bellies!
I raised sheep on the ranch growing up in Wyoming, never was very crazy about eating them. The tasted like they smelled.
Keep on Hubbing!
Aya, my parents lived through the age of a highly benevolent dictator. His name was Benito Mussolini, and as a personal friend of his late son, I believe that I am qualified to discuss the events of those halcyon years in Italy. Even the most benevolent dictatorship of any ideological bent will invariably develop an opposition, and the methods used to neutralize this opposition just as invariably become violent and inexcusable. That is the primary failing of any benevolent dictatorship (Il Duce Hal excepted). :)
The E-Voting structure I have outlined does not eliminate the Executive Branch, therefore if for example, a majority of Americans would subscribe to the misbegotten notion to execute all people with green eyes, the President could veto that legislation, just like he/she would do to any legislation today that is fundamentally flawed.
eovery, I can't stomach sheep or mutton, but if you get a nice, young, New Zealand lamb on the BBQ, the aroma is delectable! :)
Hal, I wasn't really thinking of Benito. I believe you were suggesting yourself for the office... I'm not saying I think that would work, but a dictatorship of the people is not better than a dictatorship of one person.
The normal checks and balances of the constitution, with its three branches, are fine, assuming that some unprincipled person or persons accidentally acquired power in one of them. The others then can invalidate what the unprincipled rogue person or persons did. But when the electorate are unprincipled, e-voting does not save us from the possibility of all three branches agreeing that all green eyed people should be shot.
In that eventuality, a veto that could be exercised by green eyed people -- or anyone else who feels targeted, might not be such a bad idea.
Excellent point, (regardless of the fact that Il Duce Hal would be extremely benevolent as long as his supply of young pneumatic concubines was kept up) therefore, what if we look at this veto proposal:
Any legislation which amends or nullifies the status quo protection of any citizen under the Constitution can be challenged by a vote exceeding 5% of the electorate and placed in priority fast-tracking through the Supreme Court, which shall make the final determination.
That should keep those nasty green eyes alive for a bit! :)
Also keep in mind that even with E-voting it is highly unlikely that 100% of the population would vote. Here in Canada, the turnout for the last Federal election was 41.9% of the voting population and it wasn't that much higher in the last USA Presidential one. Therefore, if all green eyed people saw extinction in the cards, that would motivate them to get off their green eyed butts and to a PC where they could all vote, unlike the brown/blue/whatever eyed people. This would serve to skew the results of the general election to prevent their executions.
Hal, okay, so I think I see what you think will be the pivot here: that people who are targeted will care to vote more on those issues that matter most to them. But what if targeting the minority group really, really matters to the majority? And what if there is a monetary inducement, too?
Let's say, the law says that the property of the green-eyed people will be divided equally among those whose eyes aren't green? Then, can't you see that e-vote or no e-vote, it all depends on how pure of heart the majority are?
Yes, I completely see your point, but keep in mind that voters today can exercise absurd choices in the current democratic system. Democratically elected leaders include Adolf Hitler, Hugo Chavez, and George W. Bush (twice!)
If we are going to expect the "morality" of politicians to override the democratically expressed majority wishes of the people, we're all in BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG trouble. I have yet to meet a politician whose morality doesn't end at his wallet or pants zipper.
There HAS to be some element in trusting that the majority of a population is going to have the common sense to not vote for genocide, and E-Voting would not increase nor decrease that amount of trust.
As for monetary inducement, it takes a LOT of money to pay off the majority population of a nation. And with the ability of the minority to reach just 5% for a Supreme Court review, that seems to be sufficient to eliminate any but the most blatant and unlikely majority votes for depravity.
I dread the day that any votes are purely managed by software. Conspiracy theories aside, people still fall for email scams promising they won a foriegn lottery, trust them with a direct vote! Trust the e-bean counters No way!
At least politicians are smart enough to ooze to the top, understanding the complexities of piece of legislation and its effects is supposed to be a full time job, certainly am not even slightly interested in giving this power to the fast food workers, high school dropouts, substitute teachers etc.
maybe a direct vote is possible, but should involve very rigorous testing on knowledge of world affairs, basic economic theory, american history, social values etc. Actually, we should have tests of this sort already just for normal voting (of course, that opens up Jim crow style problems, but our current system of people voting on emotion with no undersatnding of these concepts is foolish also)
Mob rule, direct democracy would only work in an well educated and leisure based society
I can certainly see and respect your points, but I fail to see what difference that would make in an E-voting scenario that isn't integral in current voting. Let's face it, many people would still fail to vote in any way, and if there is a crazy idea out there that people would vote for, I can assure you that some politico is going to hijack it and use it as his expressway to a cushy office in D.C. with or without E-voting. Again, no difference. Keep in mind that the "mobs" are unlikely to vote either in conventional or E-voting as they mostly don't give a good damn. However, to state that your or my vote is more important and therefore should be weighted differently than a person who is working at a fast food joint (even if he was a stockbroker last year and now it's all he can find) is rather elitist and anti-egalitarian, don't you think? :)
As for politicians being "smart enough" don't get me started. :)
Well yes, I do think it was a rather elitist statement, and certainly ones job isnt a true indicator of intelligence. I felt that e-voting was a way to make direct democracy possible.
Im afraid of a completely computerized voting system and I dont believe in a direct democracy, people are to easily swayed and mobilized into causes they no nothing about, they are to quickly brought to arms by appeals to emotion.
I say this from my experience as a grassroots organizer, say some random facts to most people, hand them a card or two, checkbooks open and votes are promised way to quickly for my tastes.
I do leam more towards Hamilton then Jefferson in this regards ie "the masses are incapable of self rule"....some of have more faith in humanity than others
I can certainly understand your recalcitrance to make such a quantum leap in democratic systems but I don't believe you should fear computerization when you consider the "post office" verification process which is completely hacker and corruption proof. I'm definitely not disagreeing with "the masses are incapable of self rule" but the bottom line is that democracy is here now, it sucks, and E-voting can go a long way towards fixing the system that we have, as no other options are suitable. I agree with Churchill: "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
No Hal, if he really said this, I disagree to him :) Exactly because masses are incapable of self rule. That is exactly why your e-democracy while definitely a fun idea to ponder is not worth implementing IMO :)
If you're referring to Winnie's quote, that is an exact one. It's often misquoted, but those are the actual words. Again, I have no problem with what you're saying, I just don't wanna be the guy who tells the nation that they have lost all democratic rights. Sounds like an express train to a lynching to me! :)
LOL you can hide behind a Great American Wall on Canadian border, just give them some time to build it first :P
No prob, dude. You might need a lot of bricks though! It's one damn loooooooooong border! :)
Well thought out Hub, and interesting idea - but, even though I have my complaints about a lot of how things are done, the proposed approach does make me pretty uncomfortable.
I may not be a fan of using tax dollars for a "bridge to nowhere"; but, boy oh boy, looking at what "the masses" would have in society, I'm not sure it's not a terrifying idea to let them/us make the decisions on voting. That's not to say I think the government should get to "go wild" or run people's lives. Still, I do think there's something to be said for having those few representatives accountable (and for holding them accountable, as well as expecting a higher standard of character/behavior than a lot of people now do).
The US has been set up to be a Representative Republic, rather than - really - a Democracy; and the benefits/reasons for that go beyond whether or not we all have computers or phones. It's not perfect. Nothing really is. Still, I think letting "the masses" make the decisions would most likely result in disaster, for a number of reasons, and regardless of what segment of society those "masses" come from.
I completely see where you're coming from and it's fully understandable. However, keep in mind that referenda have been used around the world with a high degree of success for decades. I have had the pleasure/misfortune of getting to know high ranking politicians in several countries, including the USA, and I wouldn't trust any of them to valet park my car, let alone make decisions worth trillions of dollars on my behalf. IMHO, the political class is rife with greed-riddled opportunist megalomaniacs and the best thing we can do for all of us is just get rid of them as fast as humanly possible! :)
Lisa HW, I agree with you that the constitution, as is, is fairly well written. I love the Bill of Rights and would not want to see "the masses" democratically do away with those protections. In this sense, I agree with you and not with Hal. However, something about Hal's idea does appeal to me. The idea of the ordinary person being able to override a new change to the old way of doing things! I don't want to see individual voters passing new legislation. But it would be really nice if a single voter could prevent a new law from going through, if the law specifically targeted that voter. (I know Hal, that's not exactly what you are advocating, but you're the one who got me thinking of this.) The problem is not that Congress doesn't get enough legislation passed. The problem is that they do too much. If we could put the brakes on that -- without wrecking what is good about our governmental structure -- then it would be worth it.
Hal and Aya, I do see the benefits of the "proposed plan"; but I guess my "thing" is that, given two imperfect approaches (the old way versus the proposed way), I have the unrealistic (I know) belief that cleaning up corruption, seediness, and general lack of character at the roots would be the ideal thing.
There is, though, that part of me that sees how out-of-control even local and state government has gotten (particularly in Massachusetts); and I do wish there were more of a way for citizens to sit some of these people on their bottoms. Some of them vote for things out of "iffy"/seedy motives, and others seem to think they know better than the average citizen; and still others are just egocentric, control freaks.
In a way, though, those representatives often do represent a general population that has a high percentage of people who don't care about what's right for the country, or what best preserves the principles on which it was founded; and instead care only about their own wants, egos, and needs. And then there's the percentage who may try to do that but who don't understand individual issues enough to know the most effective solutions to problems.
How do you get citizens to think in terms of what's best for the country? Leadership. How do get representatives who would act like leaders? I don't know, because in order for them to get elected they have to tell people what they want to hear, which is usually "what's in it for them". It sounds really cynical, but complete with greed, questionable motives, and a willingness to disregard what's best for the nation, or what's most in keeping with its principles; elected officials do, in a way, represent an awful lot of the population.
I just think the roots of the problem go far deeper than just how gets to vote on what.
Aya, unfortunately I can't see the merit in any ONE citizen being able to veto any legislation, as I've seen (right here on the Hubs) how you can state that the sky is blue and have hundreds of individuals of questionable mental health vehemently oppose not just your statement, but question your very existence on this mortal plane. I can't see that as being anything but complete deadlock on everything, as any new piece of legislation would find SOMEONE to veto it and nothing would ever get done.
Lisa, nothing will squash greed and egos among politicos better than humbling them. And what better way to humble them is to remind them that THE POWER IS MINE, NOT YOURS. Besides, after a while of E-voting, the public will realize that they need politicians like a hole in the head and get rid of them outright! WHO NEEDS THEM? I hope I would live to see that day! :)
Aya Katz Level 4 Commenter 3 years ago
Hal, interesting idea, excellent presentation. Now, at first I got very excited, because I thought you were giving each and every citizen a veto over what his representative does. That would mean that a single vote from one citizen in a state could override a representative's vote. But I guess you really mean that a majority of voters can override their representative. Is that right?