Does Technology Offer an Alternative?

[CanadaRocks]

It's been suggested that many Persons do not vote as they do not feel their vote has much power. Whatever is done in one government, is undone in the next, and so the pendulum swings back and forth with little change actually occurring.

Indeed, even if you do successfully vote in a particular party there is no guarentee that they will carry out the election promises they made to garner your vote in the first place, and there's little or nothing anyone can do about it for another four years when the cycle renews itself.

Have you ever felt there has to be a better way?

Imagine how inefficient business would be, if having hired an ineffective or possibly corrupt CEO you were stuck with him/her for four years and even then could only replace the Person and "hope for the best" for the next four years? Most business People would be aghast at this prospect, and so should we.

There is however an alternative. The internet is secure enough to allow us to manage our money online ie online banking. The general public is no longer largely ignorant due to the widespread availability of information. Computers are either in the home or at the nearest school or public office. Quite simply put, we could quite easily rule ourselves by online referendums.

Political representatives will become public servants acting as spokespersons for the policies and decisions determined by the majority votes cast by us, the Canadian People. If a spokesperson decides to ingnore the majority vote of the Canadian People, those they are elected to represent, they would be terminated with or without notice, just like we are in our jobs, and replaced with an employee who would do the job as they were hired too.

Bit by bit, we are seeing the values Canada has held dear whittled away. Indeed even our very right to govern ourselves, our sovereignty. Recently changes were made that seek to increase the ability of foreigers to invest in Canada up to 60%. While Canadians might not immediately see the threat this impies, just remember, the man who holds the gold makes the rules, really want outsiders telling Canadians what will be, and what will not?

If Canadians are willing to cast an online vote once per month on issues that pertain to our governing, perhaps then government truly would represent the will of our People, rather than the will of a "wealthy chosen few" and voting would once again, be worth doing.

[Michael Hardner]

CR:

Quite simply put, we could quite easily rule ourselves by online referendums.

It's not workable.

Do you want tax cuts ?

YES

Do you want more services ?

YES

Policies need to be developed with long range planning, not on a month-by-month basis.

Anyway, you have more say than you realize as the parties in power use modern polling techniques to guage the popularity of legislation before they table it.

[August1991]

Quite simply put, we could quite easily rule ourselves by online referendums.

OMG! That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Everybody would have to log on everyday, read a bunch of boring memos, figure out alot of stats and then make a decision. Participation rates would fall to single digits, decimal points, and the obsessive whackos would decide everything.

Imagine how inefficient business would be, if having hired an ineffective or possibly corrupt CEO you were stuck with him/her for four years and even then could only replace the Person and "hope for the best" for the next four years?

Another really, really dumb comparison. If you think the CEO is incompetent, you sell your shares. You're not stuck with the guy for four years.

CanadaRocks, I admire your desire to fill the "democrat deficit". But you should think a little more. Here are two ideas to chew on:

1) "One person, one vote". What if you feel very strongly about something (stopping the slaughter of baby harp seals) and I think it's OK (those Maritimers need a break) but I can live without the hunt? Should we both have equal votes? When you order pizza with friends, don't you take into account the "strength" of people's like/dislike for mushrooms?

2) "Why bother?" Let's be harshly honest. Your single vote in the next federal election will change absolutely nothing. There's more chance that a meteorite the size of PEI will hit the earth than two candidates in your riding getting exactly the same tally, and your ballot deciding who wins. So, why bother voting? My advice: Skip the trouble, you're wasting your time.

[Hugo]

If Canadians are willing to cast an online vote once per month on issues that pertain to our governing

Can't wait until someone hits that system with a denial-of-service attack or hacks it and indulges in some good old-fashioned ballot-stuffing. Do you know how many times the federal gun registry has been compromised already?

[CanadaRocks]

Well now you've got me grinning.

I'd hoped for some serious drawbacks to the system I'd proposed to come to light, and instead I'm drawing merely sceptisism.

Allow me to deal with the points you've brought up..

"Can't wait until someone hits that system with a denial-of-service attack or hacks it and indulges in some good old-fashioned ballot-stuffing"

Hacking the system will be detected and dealt with severely. If this were not so, online banking would never exist. Currently online banking uses 128bit encryption. Technology exists for encryption 100's of times stronger. Laws too can act as effective deterrents, just what will be strong enough to keep hackers from being tempted? I suspect we shall find out as examples are made. Ballot stuffing? This will be much harder when its an online enterprise as watchdog systems are far more complex and accountable than offline.

"That's the dumbest idea I've ever heard. Everybody would have to log on everyday, read a bunch of boring memos, figure out alot of stats and then make a decision"

Folks would not need to log on more than once per month in all likelyhood, unless a special vote were brought and they deemed it in their best interests to participate. The monthly votes would likely take the form of a survey, and until changed current policies would already cope with most of the political decision worklog. The proposed system would be far more accurate, efficient, and easier to manage than most can imagine. As a result? More voting numbers would increase, not decrease as suggested by yourself. The more likely that your actions have a desired affect, the more likely you will repeat that action. Thats human behavioral science.

"What if you feel very strongly about something (stopping the slaughter of baby harp seals) and I think it's OK (those Maritimers need a break) but I can live without the hunt? Should we both have equal votes?"

Yes, we should. Any decision that affects us all, for good or bad, if we are to enjoy the rewards, or suffer the consequences, we should have a say in the vote that decides our fate if we care enough to cast it.

"Let's be harshly honest. Your single vote in the next federal election will change absolutely nothing"

Exactly my point. Now I don't know about you, but if I drove my car to work and it broke down failing me 9 out of 10 times, I'd either repair it, or get a more reliable form of transportation. So if our government system is failing us despite changes in the representatives, that tells us its not the Persons, its the system. Hence? If the system is not working, its time we considered an alternate form that will accomplish the aims we expect of it.

"Do you want tax cuts ?

YES

Do you want more services ?

YES"

Not necessarily. I think that what we want, is effective services that embody Canadian values at a price that is reasonable.

What good is a tax cut that leaves your check $5 higher, but removes public health insurance? The wealthy go to private insurance, yet those that can't afford it, a growing amount of Canadians, then have none, or must make further cuts to their constantly diminishing personal budget.

Consider the state of Canada prior to the work of Persons like the Suffragettes and Tommy Douglas?

Personal taxes were lower, but there was no ohip, no workers comp, no employment insurance, no social welfare ..the list goes on. The wealthy loved it, but the bulk of Canadians suffered greatly. In today's age there is a growing gap between upper and middle class with a growing number of middle class moving towards poverty class. There is a valid reason for social programs, and a valid reason for taxes. Its redistribution for the benefit of all Canadians. Hence the issue is not that we are taxed, but that those taxes are spent wisely and with the benefit of all in mind, not just a powerful chosen few.

"Anyway, you have more say than you realize as the parties in power use modern polling techniques to guage the popularity of legislation before they table it."

I disagree, the first example that comes to mind is the GST. Our leader at that time came to power on the strenght of VOWING to abolish it. Once in power our leader said something to the affect of ummm changed my mind we need it. The majority of Canadians wanted it gone, a powerful elite few disagreed. The GST stayed. The only time I believe that politicians are truly concerned with how the majority of Canadians feel, is when an elections in the offing.

"Another really, really dumb comparison. If you think the CEO is incompetent, you sell your shares. You're not stuck with the guy for four years."

Well sir, I seriously thank you for proving my point. Further? I think we should 'sell our shares' in this system of government that does not reflect the majority will of the People it purports to represent, and look into a system of governing that will. Democracy is a suberb way to represent People's group interests and its entirely possible that online voting on the issues will give the Canadian People the reins to control our government in a truly democratic manner.

Lastly? I respectfully suggest that rather than endlessly debate (far better left to our senate as that seems their role) we put our heads together, and find a way to create a controlled model of the system I've suggested. If it shows unrepairable flaws? We'll find something that will work, and if it does work? Then we may need to consider it further.

Recommendations?

a) Find the resources to build a working model.

Use the working model to mirror a municipal level of government with full access available to the People of that constituency via home computer/and computers in schools.

c) Eliminate as many flaws technical or otherwise that can be found.

d) Compare the results obtained from the working model with the decisions made by local government.

e) Once the working model works, phase it into the local government gradually in a binding way.

Comments?

[Black Dog]

Quite simply put, we could quite easily rule ourselves by online referendums.

Uh, one question: what about those who don't have internet access?

[Hugo]

Furthermore, this idea contradicts the point of representative democracy. We have to recognise that we are not experts in all or even many of the fields in which we are obliged to do business. We can, however, hire experts like plumbers, car mechanics, doctors etc.

This is the same with politics. We are not experts in cogent and sagacious foreign policy, economics, social issues and so forth, so we "hire" (elect and pay) experts to take care of these things for us. Just as with any other hired professional, we do reserve the right to oversee the work that is done and fire-and-rehire if it is not to our liking.

A country run along the lines you have suggested would be a total mess. There would be absolutely no coherent foreign policy, for instance, people would vote on the issue of the day without a second thought to the standing of the nation and the world in 10, 20 or 50 years time. How could you decide to go to war? How would you disseminate the intelligence that governments usually gather in secret to assist them in such decisions?

How would you decide the budget? Make some budget plans and let people choose them (which means 99% of people still won't find their ideal choice), let them define it more directly (which will result in total chaos and probable economic collapse), or just settle for electing a Minister of Finance - in which case, what is the point of any of this?

In making democracy more direct you would be doing the same thing as dismissing all skilled tradesmen, healthcare professionals, executives and so forth and insisting that the common citizen do them: total and utter chaos, because people just don't have the skills to do all those things for themselves.

Lastly, you talk of tightened security but you haven't addressed the point of DoS attacks. If banks and corporations such as Microsoft are vulnerable to this kind of attack (and they are), what makes you think this database won't be? What if some hacker or, worse, a foreign intelligence service or a terrorist group decides to crash your whole system on voting day?

[vroom]

Short answer, yes, technology does offer an alternative!

However, is it a good alternative?

No, not as presented...

It would be enough if technology were able to make people feel involved and empowered. If this were to happen we'd have more involvement, more education, more thought and more good ideas.

As it is, politics is often a "who cares" game. Unless you are an old cronie it won't make any difference what you think, say, vote or do. Why bother playing such a crappy game?

[KrustyKidd]

Black Dog, you made me laugh! Good one.

Myself, as August I think noted, am one of the people that don't have the time to read countless memos and reports. I, like the rest of the democratic world (which includes countries that have elected term governments, elected a leader, not a follower. I cast a ballot to hopefully become one of the majority in order to have him or her carry out what I hold to be good choices. Whether I agree until next election, can't say, but believe it or not, I like the rest of the minority who didn't get their candidate of choice in office, and the majority, will be living in a dictatorship until the next opportunity to practice democracy..

[CanadaRocks]

Before I begin dealing with the items brought up most recently, I have a wee request. Could one of you generous souls enlighten me as to how to make those cool quote rectangles used so often? And please, forgive my ignorance, I'm a newb here *S*

All that being said? Lets begin shall we?

"It would be enough if technology were able to make people feel involved and empowered. If this were to happen we'd have more involvement, more education, more thought and more good ideas."

I would tend to agree with this statement if the world "feel" were left out.

"Furthermore, this idea contradicts the point of representative democracy. "

Yes, I imagine that having your vote counted and acted on, would not be quite the same as our current system of having representatives votes counted and acted on, quite likely your own vote would better represent your interests. Of course, I'd said a truer democracy was my goal, and not representative democracy. Besides, our spokespersons would be a form of representative, but representing what our vote told them too, and not their own idea's.

"We have to recognise that we are not experts in all or even many of the fields in which we are obliged to do business. We can, however, hire experts like plumbers, car mechanics, doctors etc."

Superb idea! Therefore we fill government positions according to who can do that particular job the best, just as a business would tend to do. We as individual Canadians, do not need to be experts at anything beyond knowing our own mind. Those we hire to do the hiring, will ensure we have the right experts, in the right positions to do the job as well as it can possibly be done.

"A country run along the lines you have suggested would be a total mess. There would be absolutely no coherent foreign policy, for instance, people would vote on the issue of the day without a second thought to the standing of the nation and the world in 10, 20 or 50 years time."

Standing policies would dictate how situations were handled until such time as the Canadian People voted to change them.

With regard to the standing of the nation and the world in decades to come? Many of the decisions made on our behalf by the businessmen we've hired to safeguard our interests, are not good for Canada in the long term and well we know it. But the average Canadian is powerless to do much more than look after our own interests and hope for some miracle. Really think we Canadians don't value health care? Really think we appreciated having our representatives give themselves raises while telling us to tighten our belts? I think if Canadians were truly able to have a government reflect our values, you'd see a very different very cohesive Canada, rather than one that is on the verge of collapse.

"What if some hacker or, worse, a foreign intelligence service or a terrorist group decides to crash your whole system on voting day? "

True, very true. Its possible and even expected that something of that nature would happen. However forewarned is forearmed. Nothing that could be done, could not be detected and undone. Have banks thrown up their hands in defeat and closed their online doors due to online being fiscally irresponsible? No. Has Microsoft cried uncle and gone offline? No. There are dangers online or offline. It is not the way of the Canadian People to flee in the face of adversity. It is our way to survive, adapt, and overcome, and that is EXACTLY what we will do.

"what about those who don't have internet access? "

Good question! While an ever increasing number of Canadians do have computers and internet access, still a healthy portion of our society does not. However, recently a government sponsored program placed computers in the classrooms of all our schools. Hence? An online computer is as close as the school nearest you, and also the library, government office, internet cafe, or freinds. If you do not have personal online access it is entirely likely that unless you choose not to, you will within the decade.

[vroom]

I don't think it matters what bells and whistles and adjustments you make, it isn't workable. The level of involvement required would just represent another tax... but this time it would take our time.

Name one successful model, in practice, that involves taking a democratic vote for every decision. True, in theory, technology could make it easier to manage votes, once the kinks get worked out, but the overhead of running an "election" on every topic would still be stupendous.

Millions of people need to find information, get opinions from other people, discuss the issue, have time to think about things and debate it, then all get online and vote by some imposed deadline. Who chooses what we vote on each time -- or is that handled by a vote too? How do you decide which things deserve a vote? What about contradicting topics with contradicting votes? What controls are in place to ensure we don't just get bogus numbers out of such a system? How do you do a recount if you think someone reported false numbers?

It is too much work to ask of the public, regardless of whether or not the technology will support it. Although we often make poor decisions, we are supposed to elect people that are good at decision making and who understand the issues and will steward our resources. This removes the burden from us until the next time we elect someone to do this for us.

[August1991]

Name one successful model, in practice, that involves taking a democratic vote for every decision.

The market for oranges.

Everday, millions of people "vote" in an "election" about whether to have oranges or not, and others "vote" about whether to produce them or not.

This model works very well. It's the best form of "democracy".

[vroom]

The oranges thing is not a vote. I am making a decision for myself if I want oranges. I am not deciding that you need to eat oranges.

A vote is about imposing a decision on people that do not agree with the majority.

I believe what you are talking about is economics and the profit motive...

[Hugo]

Yes, I imagine that having your vote counted and acted on

It wouldn't be counted and acted on any more than it is now. You are still one voice in 23 million either way you cut it.

Standing policies would dictate how situations were handled until such time as the Canadian People voted to change them.

Who gets to decide when that will be, and what happens when they do?

I will also say that simply throwing technology at a problem often fails to solve it. Since we became obsessed with computers in schools and IT in the education system, educational standards have not risen, if anything, they have fallen. If you are going to tackle the problem of low voter-turn out and so forth you would do better to go for the problem at the source and get people more interested in politics. I believe this would be best done by making politics and economics compulsory standards in high school, because it seems to me that most people don't understand these issues and don't care to understand them. Because of that, those who vote are almost as bad as those who don't, because they vote based on ignorance.

[CanadaRocks]

Before we begin, my thanks to KrustyKid for educating me with regard to quotes, feels good to improve. 'preciate it, and now..

Name one successful model, in practice, that involves taking a democratic vote for every decision

Taking a vote for every possible decision is not necessary, any more than a business owner must tell his or her manager every choices answer. While the owner may from time to time take the reins, they most often set out policies which the manager(s) deploy.

Although we often make poor decisions, we are supposed to elect people that are good at decision making and who understand the issues and will steward our resources. This removes the burden from us until the next time we elect someone to do this for us.

This, history shows all too often, is simply not the case is it? What is more likely the case is adage *absolute power corrupts absolutely*. Those we elect to represent us, for one reason or other all too often wind up representing themselves. If Canada is to survive, then this must stop.

It wouldn't be counted and acted on any more than it is now. You are still one voice in 23 million either way you cut it.

Great! But then again, thats what democracy's all about isn't it? Having our voices counted, and the majority acted on.

Gentlemen (and Ladies),

Are any of you very handy with webpages and databases? Together we could build and test one. Having a working model would easily show its pro's & cons wouldn't it? Is anyone game?

[Hugo]

Taking a vote for every possible decision is not necessary, any more than a business owner must tell his or her manager every choices answer.

But who is to decide? Currently we have a set system: all decisions to be made by elected representatives. If you are going to have some made by representatives, some decided by standing policy, and some by referenda, who decides what will be decided by each and when?

Furthermore, you don't address the problem that what a man wants is not what a man needs. In economics and politics, correct policy is often counter-intuitive (for example, a trade deficit is an asset) and what people pick in the name of good usually works out for the worst.

Of course, I'd said a truer democracy was my goal, and not representative democracy.

Unfortunately it's not possible. True democracies were seen in ancient Athens or the townships of 18th-Century America. These were gatherings of a few hundred citizens who met for several hours, spoke and were spoken to, and then voted. In Athens, for instance, the votes tended to be overwhelmingly yay or nay due to the high quality of Greek oratory.

How do you propse to replicate this? How will you have 23 million people convene once a month or even more often, debate for several hours, and then vote upon a policy?

Non-representative democracy is dead because populations are just too large to support it anymore.

[CanadaRocks]

By the way?

Considering that one must learn to walk before they can run?

What if the monthly online referendum were not to include any or all of the myriad decisions made currently by our representatives. What if INSTEAD it asked only two questions....

"Should your Member of Parliament be terminated immediately and a new election be held to find a replacement?"

and..

"Should the Prime Minister of Canada be terminated immediately and a new election be held to find a replacement?"

It may well be that these two simple questions with a majority vote binding the appropriate action to occur, would be all it takes to endow us with a more alert, responsible government.

It might be a rather interesting addition to traditional democracy?

[Hugo]

It may well be that these two simple questions with a majority vote binding the appropriate action to occur, would be all it takes to endow us with a more alert, responsible government.

Right now, the main complaint against democracy is that elected representatives tend not to think beyond the next term. Very few put plans into action for the next 20 or 50 years.

What you propose would change that. Instead of only thinking about the next few years, politicians would mainly think about next month. Unless a policy would give a tangible result in the next two months it wouldn't get done. We would mortgage our future even more than we already have.

God forbid that any politician propose anything that would cost us now and give big returns in the future. Investment would be a dead concept.

[udawg]

Ignoring the problems with security, ignoring the problems of time and participation, I still see one major problem.

Hugo and vroom touched on this, but I think it deserves further discussion: The average voter does not know enough about matters of state to make an informed decision on every issue.

I do not believe that people, as a group, have enough perspective to make competent decisions affecting the future. Given the task alone, most people will make the right decisions, given that they know all facets of the issue, and they have no other influences affecting their decision, but as a group, people tend to make poor decisions without really thinking about it.

It's bad enough that politicians often make decisions based on their desire to be reelected; how much worse would it be if they had to use the money from their own pockets. Every person who voted in this system on every issue would be looking out for number one.

The reason we elect representatives is mostly because it has always been, and still is, impossible for every individual to participate at every level, but it is also because we need somebody with a (somewhat) outside perspective on the situation. Why do companies hire outside consultants? To get better perspective.

I don't really like using the term "experts" when referring to politicians making our decisions for us, but the fact remains that it is their job to research the issues and make an informed decision. They may not be smarter, or any more knowledgable than the average voter, but they do have an obligation to take the bigger picture into account. This system can not work, because I don't think we can trust the average person to see the bigger picture or to act on it.

[CanadaRocks]

Considering one generally walks before they run, what if we simplified the concept without sacrificing its integrity?

How?

A monthly online poll with binding results asking only two questions;

a) Should an election be called and my Member of Parliament replaced immediately?

Should an election be called and our Prime Minister be replaced immediately?

This would take very little decision making time on anyones part.

This would be an effective means of keeping our politicians on the strait and narrow.

AND.. the basic design of the traditional democratic process would be maintained.

[Black Dog]

Considering one generally walks before they run, what if we simplified the concept without sacrificing its integrity?

How?

A monthly online poll with binding results asking only two questions;

a) Should an election be called and my Member of Parliament replaced immediately?

Should an election be called and our Prime Minister be replaced immediately?

This would take very little decision making time on anyones part.

This would be an effective means of keeping our politicians on the strait and narrow.

AND.. the basic design of the traditional democratic process would be maintained.

That's worse than the original idea. Not only does it not address the security concerns inhjerent in electronic polls, no government would get anything done if they had to go to the polls every month because of a fickle electorate.

Don't even get me started on the phraseology of your questions.

The problem isn't one of mechanics, but of the process itself. People don't vote becuse they feel alienated from the system and that their voices don't count, not becuase making an X on a piece of paper is too hard.

[CanadaRocks]

I've reiterated in this last post that Persons can restrict this new system to merely two choices. I was distracted and did this in error as its already been said, please forgive me?

Instead of only thinking about the next few years, politicians would mainly think about next month. Unless a policy would give a tangible result in the next two months it wouldn't get done.

I disagree. It's true that politicians whose only concern were perhaps to stay in power might do this, but then if their only concern is to stay in power do we really want them there?

If you believe strongly in an idea or plan, you will defend it against all odds. Further, Canadians are not necessarily a bunch of ignorant short sighted People incapable of seeing long term advantages as your message suggests.

Many Canadians do care very deeply about long term results such as those brought about by social programs and environmental protections. It is instead the interests of big business that opt for short term results.

For instance?

Does lowering environmental standards offer long term gains or does it offer short term rewards? We're told its "good for business" but ultimately its not sustainable is it?

How about increasing foriegn investment of Canadian business? The more outsiders own of Canada, the more economical leverage they have to influence our values. It's very good for us in the short term, but in the long term its really going to suck when the day comes that Canadians take a hard road policy decision and foriegn investors decide to close down their 60+% of business's in Canada.. can you imagine the economical havoc that will wreak?

How about if a Canadian version of the Vietnam war occurs where the People of Canada overwhelmingly disagree but those "who know better" say to hell with what those they are supposed to represent think, this is whats going to be and thats all there is too it.

No, I believe that in the "long run" it is extremely important that the People have a means of controlling those whose duty it is to serve them.

I also feel that we Canadians are a responsible People who care enough to make intelligent decisions when it comes to what we believe in, or don't.

It is very disheartening to see your lack of faith in our People, asking us instead to blindly trust elitist individuals whose self concern is demonstrated again and again with no end in sight save the very destruction of the Canada we hold dear.

Canadians are overall, intelligent responsible People.

Canadians are not ignorant to the world around them.

We are capable of making mistakes, surviving, adapting, and overcoming.

After all? We are Canadian!

[CanadaRocks]

The problem isn't one of mechanics, but of the process itself. People don't vote becuse they feel alienated from the system and that their voices don't count, not becuase making an X on a piece of paper is too hard

The very first time folks voted to remove the Prime Minister or an MP from office and being binding their majority vote caused it to happen, you would see an awful lot more of them paying greater attention and voting.

Imagine for example; The PM opts to double income tax across the board. This ticks you right off and you DO go vote at your local school to have him fired. It turns out that the majority of Canadians agreed with you and voted as well to fire him. A week later on National television the vote is read aloud and the Prime Minister is fired a stand in taking his place until a permanent replacement is found.

That shot would be heard round the world and every politician in Canada would be taking notes.

Tell me that would not have you smiling and feeling a part of your government?

Tell me that the next time your MP or PM made a choice you severely disagreed with you would not go vote?

Tell me that if you were a PM or a MP you would not be very carefully weighing your choices to respresent your electorate?

mmm?

[Hugo]

It's true that politicians whose only concern were perhaps to stay in power might do this, but then if their only concern is to stay in power do we really want them there?

You're making that classic mistake of designing a system where people are required to be virtuous and free of greed, avarice or any other human foibles. No such system can ever work until men sprout wings and haloes.

The current system recognises that politicians are chiefly after power but curbs the worst excesses with checks and balances, and tries to assure a compromise for the public good.

Imagine for example; The PM opts to double income tax across the board. This ticks you right off and you DO go vote at your local school to have him fired. It turns out that the majority of Canadians agreed with you and voted as well to fire him.

Try another example: the provincial premier approves of a new power plant. Environmentalists go nuts and the people vote him out of office next month. The power plant doesn't get built, and next summer the province loses $2 billion worth of business because of blackouts and the economy sheds 20,000 jobs.

Imagine another example: the Prime Minister approves a tax increase to pay for more border patrols and coastguards. The people don't fancy another tax increase and vote him out of office. A year later, another 9/11 happens and it is proven that the terrorists came in through Canada. The US shuts down the Canadian border and $1 billion worth of trade is lost every day (that's what Canada-US trade is worth right now). That gets kept up for four months, 1.2 million join the unemployed (every $1bn gets 10,000 jobs) and the economy tanks.

Once again, I agree with BlackDog (strange trend, but I digress): these are terrible ideas. If you want to solve the issue of low voter turn-outs and voter disenchantment, you could promote politics more, teach politics in schools, or try more realistic electoral reform such as a proportional representation scheme. These ideas will make things far worse.

[playfullfellow]

Hugo is right that voters are disenchanted with the current system as they feel that their voice is not heard so why vote. It's not because they feel that voting is a pain in the butt. Look at it this way, legally you can take off from work and go vote anytime you want to on election day and the boss can't say a thing to you. More education in schools about modern politics is also a step in the direction and kids having mock elections in school on various topics might help. I also feel that as long as the employment rate is fairly low and the economy more or less stable, people will stay at home. The current scandals floating about might bring a few more voters out but not significantly. People will think that as long as the baby is quiet, why rock the cradle.