How to overcome ideological prejudice in our arguments?

[eyeball]

I'm beginning to think you don't really like democracy all that much.

That's just plain bizarre.

But they do. Our constitution guarantees an election in the Commons at most every five years (pointless term limiting legislation not withstanding).

Oh boy, we get to weigh in once every 5 years. Wow. Excuse me for feeling underwhelmed. This is usually the point when I get lectured on my lack of gratefulness for the sacrifices my grand-daddies made or counting my lucky stars I don't live in Iran or something equally irrelevant.

Generally, as one debates a person about their proposals, those ideas tend to become clearer and more concrete. With you, it's the opposite. Things become murkier as we progress.

Well, you think I don't like democracy so its not surprising things seem murky to you.

A jury is still restrained by the law and by the judge, and ultimately, if necessary, by appeal.

Not my assemblies, the only thing that will hold them back if they don't get their way is armed force.

And you haven't sold me on the idea of a legislature-by-lottery-winners is going to deliver a more egalitarian, less politicized body.

Clearly I haven't.

My idea of a major question is a constitutional change or a major electoral overhaul, not on whether a few thousand soldiers stay in Afghanistan until or beyond 2011. But even Citizens Assemblies in cases of constitutional change must be informed and guided to some degree by leader scholars. In the case of a constitutional change, what I would rather see is a *Constitutional Assembly*, made up of leading experts on constitutional law, that ultimately would come up with recommendations that could either be sold as a package at a referendum or could be passed on to a Citizens Assembly.

My idea of a major question would be whether we should have sent soldiers to Afghanistan in the first place.

In the case of other major questions I too would insist on there being leading experts at hand to inform and guide the Citizens Assembly. I see little reason why a reasonable number of major questions, a package as you put it, couldn't be put to referendum say two times during an election cycle. Depending on the circumstances, legal or constitutional etc these could be a mix of binding and non-binding votes.

We're not so far apart in general terms of what we'd like to see, its more the scope of electoral reforms, the range of things and number of times assemblies might deal with them that's at issue.

It seems to me you still have some issues with overcoming your ideological prejudices as evidenced by your opening statement that I quoted above. Forgive me for thinking you're implying that my alleged dislike for democracy is equal to some desire that we replace it with dictatorship, but that's what it seems you're saying. If you have reason to believe that more hands on democracy in the hands of the people will lead to greater dictatorship I'd like to hear it. If its simply a matter of cost preventing us from expanding democracy then lets figure out how we can do it more efficiently i.e. the Internet and on-line voting comes to mind.

Edited December 23, 2009 by eyeball

[g_bambino]

Is my prejudice extreme?

In favour of these "citizens' assemblies" and what they should do, yes. You seem completely unwilling to budge on the idea, regardless of how much information undermining the notion is placed before you. I've seen numerous responses to your proposal that end up in frustrated confusion - as, admittedly, have I - yet, you still stick to the ideological prejudice. I think that kind of inflexibility is exactly what the OP was lamenting.

[eyeball]

In favour of these "citizens' assemblies" and what they should do, yes. You seem completely unwilling to budge on the idea, regardless of how much information undermining the notion is placed before you. I've seen numerous responses to your proposal that end up in frustrated confusion - as, admittedly, have I - yet, you still stick to the ideological prejudice. I think that kind of inflexibility is exactly what the OP was lamenting.

Yeah, you're probably right although its really just different methods of achieving accountability and transparency that I've been trying to explore. I think these are probably the real non-starters myself.

Oh well its almost New Year's maybe I'll resolve to drop the topic.

Hooray went the crowd!

[ToadBrother]

Yeah, you're probably right although its really just different methods of achieving accountability and transparency that I've been trying to explore. I think these are probably the real non-starters myself.

The problem is that you're assuming, based on no evidence that I can see, that wider use of Citizens Assemblies would in fact diminish ideology in politics. For certain kinds of questions, like the BC electoral reform initiative, where ideology is only going to play a relatively minor role, it could work (the NDP and BC Liberals both, under the sheets loathed STV and worked very hard through their minions to see it wiped out, so it clearly wasn't a partisan objection). The same might apply to constitutional changes, though I'd suspect that extreme partisan opinions on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms might reveal that even in a Citizens Assembly, there would be sharp ideological divides.

But the minute you start talking about whether we should get involved in an armed conflict or alterations to tax law or something like that, well I can tell you that people are not going to leave their own personal opinions and ideological and philosophical beliefs at the door, and sooner or later the game of politics is going to intrude. Politics is a fundamental reality of social groupings. It certainly wouldn't be as formalized as Parliament, but believe me, you're going to have your Alpha Males (or Females); charismatic individuals who will tend to at first dominate like-minded individuals, and then direct them, except there will be few technical restraints of any kind.

[eyeball]

The problem is that you're assuming, based on no evidence that I can see, that wider use of Citizens Assemblies would in fact diminish ideology in politics.

The point as I've said is to increase transparency. Assemblies and referenda would also have the effect of making citizens and voters more responsible for the decisions and policies we live by. Everything is political, that'll never go away.

For certain kinds of questions, like the BC electoral reform initiative, where ideology is only going to play a relatively minor role, it could work (the NDP and BC Liberals both, under the sheets loathed STV and worked very hard through their minions to see it wiped out, so it clearly wasn't a partisan objection). The same might apply to constitutional changes, though I'd suspect that extreme partisan opinions on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms might reveal that even in a Citizens Assembly, there would be sharp ideological divides.

But the minute you start talking about whether we should get involved in an armed conflict or alterations to tax law or something like that, well I can tell you that people are not going to leave their own personal opinions and ideological and philosophical beliefs at the door, and sooner or later the game of politics is going to intrude. Politics is a fundamental reality of social groupings. It certainly wouldn't be as formalized as Parliament, but believe me, you're going to have your Alpha Males (or Females); charismatic individuals who will tend to at first dominate like-minded individuals, and then direct them, except there will be few technical restraints of any kind.

If the assembly was large enough to be representative of the population it stands to reason that there will only be a few extreme partisans in the group. I think it would make very good sense for experts to point out the pitfalls that groups can encounter at the orientation stage of the session and if this is followed by meticulous moderation and professional chairmanship I think the worst problems can be resolved quite readily.

I see this Alpha-person dynamic you mentioned reflected in my own community. The Alphas are also usually the process junkies - I've seen more of the same faces around the meeting tables in the fairly minor forums I've been involved in for nearly 30 years than new fresh faces. These latter come and go but they rarely come back. What I've rarely ever seen however is people letting their ideological prejudices get the better of them when they are face to face. I don't recall hearing about any screaming matches or bitter acrimony at the BC Citizens Assembly on STV.

(the NDP and BC Liberals both, under the sheets loathed STV and worked very hard through their minions to see it wiped out, so it clearly wasn't a partisan objection)

It wasn't partisan according to the old left/right divide the cleaves through our society sideways but what about the division between the governed and the government? I'm afraid that gap may have widened beyond our reach. Is it safe to say you were not happy with the STV result in B.C. either?

Edited December 24, 2009 by eyeball

[Smallc]

If the assembly was large enough to be representative of the population it stands to reason that there will only be a few extreme partisans in the group.

Ah, like a parliament....wait.

[ToadBrother]

Ah, like a parliament....wait.

That's really my point. He's simply advocating a legislature where people get in by winning some sort of lottery (like jury duty). These people, so far as I can tell, would not be accountable in any meaningful way to the people they represent, and in fact, wouldn't actually have a constituency. In other words, it's a legislature that's even worse than Parliament.

[eyeball]

No, I'm simply advocating a few more Citizen's Assemblies like the one on the B.C. STV but on a few more issues from time to time. Why? To put a little more responsibility for decision making into Canadian's hands to deliberately try to overcome the ideological prejudice, which is probably at the heart of the lack of transparency, and so often a part of, every decision Parliament makes, especially the major ones.

As far as accountability to the public goes, exactly what is the issue here? What is so unfair or unequal about a random selection process? This should be no less innocuous than picking short sticks out of a pile of longer one's. The fact the people vote on the referendum question the assembly produces doesn't count for accountability?

[ToadBrother]

No, I'm simply advocating a few more Citizen's Assemblies like the one on the B.C. STV but on a few more issues from time to time. Why? To put a little more responsibility for decision making into Canadian's hands to deliberately try to overcome the ideological prejudice, which is probably at the heart of the lack of

transparency, and so often a part of, every decision Parliament makes, especially the major ones.

Part of the problem is that I don't think you actually know what you want. AT some points you seem to be advocating an advisory assembly that would either report to Parliament or the electorate. At other points you seem to be advocating an actual legislative body with the power, in some way, to directly plug into the legislative framework.

As far as accountability to the public goes, exactly what is the issue here? What is so unfair or unequal about a random selection process? This should be no less innocuous than picking short sticks out of a pile of longer one's. The fact the people vote on the referendum question the assembly produces doesn't count for accountability?

Because it will not produce the best people for the job. They will have undergone no sort of vetting process that we see in a political campaign, they will answer to no one.

[eyeball]

Part of the problem is that I don't think you actually know what you want.

I simply want a more transparent government and accountable decision making process and I think the best way, probably the only way to achieve these, are through a mix of broad electoral and representative reforms.

I'm simply sick of forever being treated like a cross between mushroom and a sheep and held hostage to a decision making process that is as distant as the far side of the moon. Is that somehow ignoble of me or too hard to understand? To tell you the truth I'd pretty much settle for any kind of change just for the sake of knowing change is still possible.

Because it will not produce the best people for the job. They will have undergone no sort of vetting process that we see in a political campaign, they will answer to no one.

Select them in a process similar to that which selected participants in the BC STV and vet them the way a jury is to weed out people who are not suitable if need be. You suggested the "minions" of the B.C. NDP and Liberals somehow skewered this. How? Was the selection process manipulated? If it was then voters, even those who voted nay, should be rightly pissed off. By the way you haven't answered how you felt about the B.C. STV. Did you approve of the effort and how did you vote?

It seems you're saying that political process acts as if people are too collectively stupid to be trusted with making decisions. Yet we can still be trusted to decide who the best people to make decisions are during the short window of a political campaign? This seems like a self-serving prejudice that we should try to overcome.

Are you a politician or an active member with a vested interest in a political party by any chance?

[ToadBrother]

I simply want a more transparent government and accountable decision making process and I think the best way, probably the only way to achieve these, are through a mix of broad electoral and representative reforms.

You're not going to get either. Systems very rarely change through revolution. Systems, normally, do not survive revolutions, and most often, what comes out the other end of a revolution is, at best, no better than what came before, and often off, much much worse. Our system is an evolutionary one. Change comes through modification, not through throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Representative democracies have a distinct advantage over direct ones, which advocates of direct democracy tend to ignore, and that is simply that direct democracies have a tendency towards mobocracy. There needs to be some sort of governor between the popular will and the actual exercise of power.

I'm simply sick of forever being treated like a cross between mushroom and a sheep and held hostage to a decision making process that is as distant as the far side of the moon. Is that somehow ignoble of me or too hard to understand? To tell you the truth I'd pretty much settle for any kind of change just for the sake of knowing change is still possible.

I think that is an unwise position. Change for change's sake alone is not going to produce a better system.

Select them in a process similar to that which selected participants in the BC STV and vet them the way a jury is to weed out people who are not suitable if need be. You suggested the "minions" of the B.C. NDP and Liberals somehow skewered this. How? Was the selection process manipulated? If it was then voters, even those who voted nay, should be rightly pissed off. By the way you haven't answered how you felt about the B.C. STV. Did you approve of the effort and how did you vote?

As I said previously, I approve of such assemblies for VERY BIG QUESTIONS, where the body has a very limited scope and a very fixed term, and its function is primarily advisory, or at most to control the question as put to a referendum.

BC STV was ultimately defeated by what amounted to a smear campaign. On a web board I was contributing to, there were two determined posters, one which I knew was on the local BC Liberal candidate's campaign, and the other I suspect was in thick with the local NDP. While the two parties "officially" were neutral, there was enough evidence tying the various astroturfing campaigns to them to pretty much out them as the chief sources of opposition.

I voted in favor of STV in both 2005 and 2009, and was quite angered at the disinformation. But the second the question is put to the public, you're going to face politicization. That's rather my point. Politics and ideologies aren't entities you can separate from a policy debate. They are the ocean in which such debates float. Pretending that you can remove them is naive and overly optimistic.

It seems you're saying that political process acts as if people are too collectively stupid to be trusted with making decisions. Yet we can still be trusted to decide who the best people to make decisions are during the short window of a political campaign? This seems like a self-serving prejudice that we should try to overcome.

I didn't say "stupid". I think the point is that it's dangerous not to have some means of "evening" things out. Policies should be long-term, and not simply governed by popular whim. A functional democracy is a balance between the public will and the public good, the two are not always synonymous.

Are you a politician or an active member with a vested interest in a political party by any chance?

I am not a politician, and I refuse to ever join any political party. I value my ideological freedom, and have no desire to sublimate it in the interests of any party.

Edited December 27, 2009 by ToadBrother

[William Ashley]

I think the answer could only exist in mental incapacity and severe substance abuse.

Personally I think everyone who is sentient will have a world view. While this world view may not be the majorities, or even seen as coherent it will exist.

While we can be goalless in a general sense - I have no real social aspirations, I do have personal goals, for example I'd like to be somewhere warm, preferably Mexico, or somewhere with a pool and a gym.

Any political leanings are not for my own personal benefit, but rather very much ideological for what I see as acheiving social benefit. I very much do have ideologies, BUT they are not prejudices, because I think everyones personal freedom to make their own choices and do what they'd like is valued, to the extent of interferance in others lives. While that could be a prejudice, it is something that keeps me from being in an inhumane vegetative sadistic state. For if I didn't value equality of choice then I don't think I would have a basis to exist as a human.

I think in terms of methodology I may also have beleifs grounded in a physical reality, rather than spiritual. I see political means as being physically grounded, not emotionally grounded, afterall we are together interacting in a physical world of limitation - there is no emotional limitation, only physical, as we can interpret or create emotive reception and transmission to our hearts content. The physical world is the social challenge. Oddly however,as it may be the emotive/mental that propels political ideology.

I'm only really biased against attacks - eg. offences against person or property which are offensive in nature without reasonable grounds, as that would yeild to sadism and inhumanity that is the basis of my ideological beleifs that I try to defend against.

I think the emotive ought be left to religion, while the political be left to social state, capacities of the society, and state of the society as it grows, interacting with institutional components, managing the interactions of business and religion, to with the political bring about the state of society in more of a whole sense of soulful agendas, needs and level of acceptance with continuance of the program.

Edited December 27, 2009 by William Ashley

[eyeball]

You're not going to get either.

Transparency and accountability or electoral and representative reforms?

Systems very rarely change through revolution. Systems, normally, do not survive revolutions, and most often, what comes out the other end of a revolution is, at best, no better than what came before, and often off, much much worse. Our system is an evolutionary one. Change comes through modification, not through throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Representative democracies have a distinct advantage over direct ones, which advocates of direct democracy tend to ignore, and that is simply that direct democracies have a tendency towards mobocracy. There needs to be some sort of governor between the popular will and the actual exercise of power.

I guess that's why I said we'd do well to keep some sort of over-arching authority like the Crown or the monarch to fall back on. I know what your saying about a mobocracy and I've taken note of the recent referendum on Islamic religious symbols in Switzerland. Our system however is no longer evolving or adapting and this is fatal. I fail to see how a revolution or collapse can be avoided. Recall I did say that these assemblies could result in a mix of binding and non-binding referendums depending on Charter (i.e. minority rights) or other legal circumstances.

I think that is an unwise position. Change for change's sake alone is not going to produce a better system.

That's probably just my spite talking. My loathing for the system is so great some days that I truly believe I would cheer its collapse.

As I said previously, I approve of such assemblies for VERY BIG QUESTIONS, where the body has a very limited scope and a very fixed term, and its function is primarily advisory, or at most to control the question as put to a referendum.

BC STV was ultimately defeated by what amounted to a smear campaign. On a web board I was contributing to, there were two determined posters, one which I knew was on the local BC Liberal candidate's campaign, and the other I suspect was in thick with the local NDP. While the two parties "officially" were neutral, there was enough evidence tying the various astroturfing campaigns to them to pretty much out them as the chief sources of opposition.

I can't help but wonder if it was the selection process got away from us. Perhaps a royal commission would have been a better way to go. I also recall reading a suggestion that the STV proposal should have come with a trial period in which we could test drive the system for an election cycle or two before completely committing to it. This alone probably would have pushed it over the 60% mark. It makes me puke to think the chance of similar reforms is likely lost for another whole generation.

I voted in favor of STV in both 2005 and 2009, and was quite angered at the disinformation. But the second the question is put to the public, you're going to face politicization. That's rather my point. Politics and ideologies aren't entities you can separate from a policy debate. They are the ocean in which such debates float. Pretending that you can remove them is naive and overly optimistic.

I never imagined for a second that they could be removed, what we should do is keep them front and center in our awareness and never ever let them out of our sight.

I didn't say "stupid". I think the point is that it's dangerous not to have some means of "evening" things out. Policies should be long-term, and not simply governed by popular whim. A functional democracy is a balance between the public will and the public good, the two are not always synonymous.

I am not a politician, and I refuse to ever join any political party. I value my ideological freedom, and have no desire to sublimate it in the interests of any party.

That's too bad, I was just going to suggest we form a new party that's based on a platform of not just transparency but outright anti-secrecy, but who would ever believe it?

I guess I feel similar but I've taken it one step further, I refuse to participate in our political process. I value my self-respect too much and hate the thought that my vote might be taken as an endorsement of a system (as opposed to democracy) that I find utterly repulsive. Perhaps the only way to force a change is an election boycott. At what point will the facade of legitimacy be too embarrassing for even a Liberal, NDP or Conservative party to bear?

Edited December 27, 2009 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

I guess that's why I said we'd do well to keep some sort of over-arching authority like the Crown or the monarch to fall back on. I know what your saying about a mobocracy and I've taken note of the recent referendum on Islamic religious symbols in Switzerland. Our system however is no longer evolving or adapting and this is fatal. I fail to see how a revolution or collapse can be avoided. Recall I did say that these assemblies could result in a mix of binding and non-binding referendums depending on Charter (i.e. minority rights) or other legal circumstances.

Why do you say our system isn't evolving or adapting ? Evolution is a slow process, so you'd have to look very closely to notice it even in the course of a generation. That said, we're seeing the beginnings of major changes from the web. You're looking the other way if you don't see it.

Do you remember Howard Dean, who came from nowhere a few years back to challenge for the Democratic leadership ? That's just a hint of what is to come.

Evolution follows environmental change, and since we're just seeing the start of environmental change in our media - by that I mean the advent of the web - it stands to reason that more changes are coming.

Try to separate your own frustration from the general zeitgeist, and you might find that it's really your feelings that you perceive out there.

That's probably just my spite talking. My loathing for the system is so great some days that I truly believe I would cheer its collapse.

I can't help but wonder if it was the selection process got away from us. Perhaps a royal commission would have been a better way to go. I also recall reading a suggestion that the STV proposal should have come with a trial period in which we could test drive the system for an election cycle or two before completely committing to it. This alone probably would have pushed it over the 60% mark. It makes me puke to think the chance of similar reforms is likely lost for another whole generation.

I never imagined for a second that they could be removed, what we should do is keep them front and center in our awareness and never ever let them out of our sight.

That's too bad, I was just going to suggest we form a new party that's based on a platform of not just transparency but outright anti-secrecy, but who would ever believe it?

I guess I feel similar but I've taken it one step further, I refuse to participate in our political process. I value my self-respect too much and hate the thought that my vote might be taken as an endorsement of a system (as opposed to democracy) that I find utterly repulsive. Perhaps the only way to force a change is an election boycott. At what point will the facade of legitimacy be too embarrassing for even a Liberal, NDP or Conservative party to bear?

I'm looking at your points again, eyeball, and seeing that you're seeing your own feelings out there in the general population. I don't think that's the case. The current system can't accomodate full participation as you want to see come to pass. That would involve thousands of times more input than we have now, and reaching out to a populace that, for the most part, just doesn't care. The current system depends on people like you to step up and apply your passions on behalf of those who sit back and do nothing. If you used your energy in the current system, you could make a difference. In a full participatory system as you propose, your voice would be lost in tens of thousands of inarticulate voices.

Think about it.

[ToadBrother]

I guess that's why I said we'd do well to keep some sort of over-arching authority like the Crown or the monarch to fall back on. I know what your saying about a mobocracy and I've taken note of the recent referendum on Islamic religious symbols in Switzerland. Our system however is no longer evolving or adapting and this is fatal. I fail to see how a revolution or collapse can be avoided.

Of course it's still evolving. It may not always be evolving in the fashion you like, but a quick review of parliamentary history demonstrates that, somewhat unwillingly, Parliament is far more accountable and transparent than it was a generation ago. There's a long way to go, but to say there hasn't been progress is absurd.

Recall I did say that these assemblies could result in a mix of binding and non-binding referendums depending on Charter (i.e. minority rights) or other legal circumstances.

As we see with normal lawmaking, how do you know until there's a court challenge that any particular law is or is not a Charter issue? How is this check and different than the checks on Parliament already in place? Would you have the Courts review every recommendation before this Assembly to make sure that it's constitutionally legitimate?

That's probably just my spite talking. My loathing for the system is so great some days that I truly believe I would cheer its collapse.

I think you'd better review what happens in collapsed systems as well.

I can't help but wonder if it was the selection process got away from us. Perhaps a royal commission would have been a better way to go. I also recall reading a suggestion that the STV proposal should have come with a trial period in which we could test drive the system for an election cycle or two before completely committing to it. This alone probably would have pushed it over the 60% mark. It makes me puke to think the chance of similar reforms is likely lost for another whole generation.

There was plenty of information. But, at the end of the day, the reason it nearly succeeded in 2005 was because memory of the last two lopsided elections (1996 where the NDP won despite losing the popular vote and 2001 where the BC Liberals won all but 2 seats with 60% of the popular vote) was still very fresh in everyone's mind. The 2005 election, however, delivered a much better constituted legislature, so a lot of the arguments for STV, in the short term at least, disappeared, and the 1996 and 2001 elections were seen as statistical anomalies (which, even I an STV supporter, will readily admit, most first-past-the-post elections do not produce the extremes we saw).

That's too bad, I was just going to suggest we form a new party that's based on a platform of not just transparency but outright anti-secrecy, but who would ever believe it?

Like I said, the second you join a party, you're forced into compromise on core issues. It's the nature of party politics.

I guess I feel similar but I've taken it one step further, I refuse to participate in our political process. I value my self-respect too much and hate the thought that my vote might be taken as an endorsement of a system (as opposed to democracy) that I find utterly repulsive. Perhaps the only way to force a change is an election boycott. At what point will the facade of legitimacy be too embarrassing for even a Liberal, NDP or Conservative party to bear?

Oh, I contribute to the process. I let my representatives know my feelings and speak out on issues at the local level. You want a perfect system, and that isn't going to happen. All your recommendations will do is introduce a whole host of new problems, and I'm not convinced it will solve all that many of the current problems. I'd much prefer to reform the existing system, which, despite all its flaws, is one of the most successful governing systems ever developed.

Edited December 29, 2009 by ToadBrother

[g_bambino]

I simply want a more transparent government and accountable decision making process... I'm simply sick of forever being treated like a cross between mushroom and a sheep and held hostage to a decision making process that is as distant as the far side of the moon. Is that somehow ignoble of me or too hard to understand?

No, of course it isn't. I think, though, that the barriers you say prevent people from participating in the process actually aren't anywhere but in people's own heads; people don't have to act like sheep and mushrooms, but they do. In that vein, you can, of course, get yourself in there. Become a politician. Run for parliament.

[Oleg Bach]

I confess that I can get quite irate when a forumite tries to argue a point using lazy ideological stereotypes. For example, problem X is all the 'socialists' fault (as if we even all agreed on the term socialist), and of course problem Y is all the capitalists' fault (again, as if we all agreed on its definition too). And it goes without saying that problem A is the Conservatives' fault, problem B is the Jews' fault, problem C is the Muslims' fault, etc.

And of course party D can take all the credit and glory for the success of policy E. praise the party!

How has the Canadian brain gone so to mush that the best argument for or against something has become to just label it something with either a positive of negative connotation.

What's going on with the Canadian education system that that's about as critically as our minds can function?

The people with the most influence in the nation probably don't bother with left or right wing idealogies. Why would they? Politics is theatre. It is and always has been a diversionary institution who's sole purpose was to cause the common human mind to vacilate in a blurring vibration of sorts to befuddle the masses. If you look right and then left often and rapidly enough you will not have a clue of what is truely visable...just a blur.