Direct Democracy

[Michael Hardner]

Its called referendum. Happens all the time in the States, with damned near every election, works fine for them. Happens with very nearly all legislation in Switzerland and they love it. WE had one referendum here in my life, about Quebec.

How many referenda per year could we stand to have, in your opinion ? On what types of issues ?

[Smallc]

Its called referendum. Happens all the time in the States, with damned near every election, works fine for them. Happens with very nearly all legislation in Switzerland and they love it. WE had one referendum here in my life, about Quebec.

And WE doen't want to change it, Jerry. You want to. That's fine for you, but that isn't how things work here. Canadians don't seem to care about voting on every issue. The reason for that is, by and large, despite some complaints, the system works as well or better than most in the world. We don't need to follow someone else's example. We've have our own, and it works well.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

How many referenda per year could we stand to have, in your opinion ? On what types of issues ?

I think its obvious that we would need to develop an agenda first. That will determine how things play out. For example, one single question to be resolved with the next election and binding referendum. Its not an all or nothing package that I suggest but instead a careful process to actually get something done. How many or how often do these things take place you ask? I will suggest they be started with attaching them to the general election process. I will suggest that the issues are determined by the public, sufficient consent to start the process.

[Michael Hardner]

I think its obvious that we would need to develop an agenda first. That will determine how things play out. For example, one single question to be resolved with the next election and binding referendum. Its not an all or nothing package that I suggest but instead a careful process to actually get something done. How many or how often do these things take place you ask? I will suggest they be started with attaching them to the general election process. I will suggest that the issues are determined by the public, sufficient consent to start the process.

What kind of questions need to be asked ? How would you characterize these questions ?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

What kind of questions need to be asked ? How would you characterize these questions ?

I think the "first" referendum should be whether or not we try and use referendums to solve some of our problems! Float the question and let citizens decide. After that, they choose the questions, its their referendum not the governments.

[Michael Hardner]

I think the "first" referendum should be whether or not we try and use referendums to solve some of our problems! Float the question and let citizens decide. After that, they choose the questions, its their referendum not the governments.

We DO use them ! Let them choose the questions ? How ?

Again, you're being so general that it makes me think you haven't thought about this much.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Michael Hardner

[Jerry J. Fortin]

And WE doen't want to change it, Jerry. You want to. That's fine for you, but that isn't how things work here. Canadians don't seem to care about voting on every issue. The reason for that is, by and large, despite some complaints, the system works as well or better than most in the world. We don't need to follow someone else's example. We've have our own, and it works well.

In your opinion that is. We are already following some one elses example, which is part of my point. The fact that our system works like much of the rest of the world doesn't mean much to me, considering I think that most countries are like this one, out to lunch and governed by an elitist group of well advantages citizens. Their agendas and the rest of ours are two different things. Most citizens want less government, less taxes and less debt. Most politicians are smart enough to know that with dollars in their hands they can share our wealth support their friends and buy enough air time to get elected. This is the system that needs to be changed.

[eyeball]

'Deserve' to legislate ? Millions of people can't ALL legislate, it's unworkable.

And yet I'm often told the only way to effect local changes to something like how a fishery on the west coast is managed is to get millions of Canadians everywhere to pressure politicians to do so. That's just plain silly and yet that's also pretty much the reality. It's also next to impossible of course. That process takes so long that the people who initiate it will die before they ever see any change.

Democracy is a responsibility as well as a right. The idea that you deserve anything from voting, other than an elected party and leader is, to my mind, a reflection of consumerist society onto civic life.

And the reasons given for this on this thread continue to be airy, and non-specific calls for "more democracy" without explaining specifics.

As I see it our real goal here should be more transparency. If there is any one universal change we could make to how we govern ourselves that people could sense at a local level it would be more transparency at the senior most levels of government and the more the better.

I ask again for a specific example of how such a system would take an idea, process it through debate and make it law. And how would our society change as a result ?

Process an idea the way we do now then put it to the people for final yea or nay. Surely we can avoid the more obvious problems that can crop up when direct democracy is taken to far while still allowing room for lots of issues to be decided by referenda. Citizen's assemblies and panels of experts could determine what's pertinent and sift the diamonds from the crap that would no doubt be proposed.

I expect society to go through a maturing process over a period of years perhaps generations instead of realizing some instant change or immediate betterment. I'd say that expectation is more reflective of a consumerist mindset.

Speaking of a consumerist mindset A mass consumerist mindset would centralize authority for just about everything into a handful of capital cities spread across almost 9000 km that are often thousands of km from the regions they control. THAT's what's really unworkable. Direct governance is where we really need to through more regionalism and pressure for more local autonomy.

Direct democracy predates representative democracy, and was rejected a long time ago because it lead to mobocracy. It seems what you want is dinosaurs.

Nonsense! It was abandoned because it was found unworkable on a scale much larger than that of a village. They had no functional means of communication beyond word of mouth, at the time. That has changed, as well as we have.

Smaller jurisdictions distributed across Canada's landscape would probably make direct democracy more workable. Calls for more autonomy from Toronto, Quebec and Alberta seem quite natural to me and of course I can only marvel at the opportunity that native people in my region are realizing through the greater autonomy that self government and actual jurisdiction over natural resources in their territories have given them. Small and local is where it's at.

Edited October 19, 2010 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

And yet I'm often told the only way to effect local changes to something like how a fishery on the west coast is managed is to get millions of Canadians everywhere to pressure politicians to do so. That's just plain silly and yet that's also pretty much the reality. It's also next to impossible of course. That process takes so long that the people who initiate it will die before they ever see any change.

If things are that bad, you have other options. Protest your cause. If the government is mismanaging things that badly, tell the opposition parties to take it up.

They should never run things as you describe - and they don't just do it with fisheries. A lot of this would be covered under the Government 2.0 initiatives that I'm always cheering for.

As I see it our real goal here should be more transparency. If there is any one universal change we could make to how we govern ourselves that people could sense at a local level it would be more transparency at the senior most levels of government and the more the better.

Your fisheries issue is a rare example - in that you have a federal issue that impacts your local riding very directly, but I get your point.

Process an idea the way we do now then put it to the people for final yea or nay. Surely we can avoid the more obvious problems that can crop up when direct democracy is taken to far while still allowing room for lots of issues to be decided by referenda. Citizen's assemblies and panels of experts could determine what's pertinent and sift the diamonds from the crap that would no doubt be proposed.

I would think that a true town hall format would serve the fisheries question better than referenda.

Speaking of a consumerist mindset A mass consumerist mindset would centralize authority for just about everything into a handful of capital cities spread across almost 9000 km that are often thousands of km from the regions they control. THAT's what's really unworkable. Direct governance is where we really need to through more regionalism and pressure for more local autonomy.

Interesting idea - integrating local, provincial and federal seats of power into dozens of administrative centres.

Smaller jurisdictions distributed across Canada's landscape would probably make direct democracy more workable. Calls for more autonomy from Toronto, Quebec and Alberta seem quite natural to me and of course I can only marvel at the opportunity that native people in my region are realizing through the greater autonomy that self government and actual jurisdiction over natural resources in their territories have given them. Small and local is where it's at.

That's a quote that came up twice yesterday from Alexis de Tocqueville.

"In towns it is impossible to prevent men from assembling, getting excited together and forming sudden passionate resolves. Towns are like great meeting houses with all the inhabitants as members. In them the people wield immense influence over their magistrates and often carry their desires into execution without intermediaries."

[ToadBrother]

And yet I'm often told the only way to effect local changes to something like how a fishery on the west coast is managed is to get millions of Canadians everywhere to pressure politicians to do so. That's just plain silly and yet that's also pretty much the reality. It's also next to impossible of course. That process takes so long that the people who initiate it will die before they ever see any change.

The fisheries issue is a peculiarity of our constitution, formulated when fisheries were a far greater aspect of international relations than they are now. Clearly the solution would be for the Federal government to devolve West Coast fisheries management to BC. The Atlantic Fishery is a considerably different creature, so I'm not sure how well that would work on the other side of the country.

As I see it our real goal here should be more transparency. If there is any one universal change we could make to how we govern ourselves that people could sense at a local level it would be more transparency at the senior most levels of government and the more the better.

Transparency is a beautiful goal, the problem being that not even at the local level can one get absolute transparency. In fact, my observation is that local politics in some ways is a lot worse than federal and provincial politics. Parliament and the Legislatures tend to have a lot more stringent codes of ethics that city councils.

Process an idea the way we do now then put it to the people for final yea or nay. Surely we can avoid the more obvious problems that can crop up when direct democracy is taken to far while still allowing room for lots of issues to be decided by referenda. Citizen's assemblies and panels of experts could determine what's pertinent and sift the diamonds from the crap that would no doubt be proposed.

The question always is "What issues?" Do you think, for instance, that human rights issues like abortion or same-sex marriage should be left up to the public directly to decide? Do you think courts would be under greater pressure to accept the results of referenda in such situations? Would you accept that the courts still have the power to overturn issues brought up by referendum? And again, you invent new legislatures to deal with issues like this. Where's the transparency there, how do you prevent precisely the same forces that have created what you so dislike in politics currently from creeping into a citizen's assembly? What if it turned out the panel of experts was being influenced unduly by certain groups? Your checks and balances need checks and balances too.

I still don't see how your ideas would ultimately improve the situation. They would, it seems complicate horribly?

And, at the end of the day, what if all of this still didn't get you your way.

I expect society to go through a maturing process over a period of years perhaps generations instead of realizing some instant change or immediate betterment. I'd say that expectation is more reflective of a consumerist mindset.

I'd say it's reflective of humanity itself. For better and for worse, people don't live in tomorrow. Long-term planning is very tough, and most people beyond their own life plans simply won't wrap their heads around grand societal goals. The fact is that long-term plans are the one thing that democracies tend to be not so good at, because there's no central authority imposing its vision over a sufficient length of time. You don't have Pharaohonic individuals who rule for a life time able to command society in a direction. Democracy is messy, period.

Speaking of a consumerist mindset A mass consumerist mindset would centralize authority for just about everything into a handful of capital cities spread across almost 9000 km that are often thousands of km from the regions they control. THAT's what's really unworkable. Direct governance is where we really need to through more regionalism and pressure for more local autonomy.

Um, that's largely how civilization works. The city, since the rise of Sumer, has been the central structure of culture, authority and trade. Believe me the country mouse distaste for the city mouse's overbearing ways is a feature of civilizations the world over. It has nothing to do with consumerism, and everything to do with the center of political and social gravity.

Smaller jurisdictions distributed across Canada's landscape would probably make direct democracy more workable. Calls for more autonomy from Toronto, Quebec and Alberta seem quite natural to me and of course I can only marvel at the opportunity that native people in my region are realizing through the greater autonomy that self government and actual jurisdiction over natural resources in their territories have given them. Small and local is where it's at.

Aboriginal self rule is usually in fairly small communities or groups of communities, no more than a few thousand. I'm not sure how equatable the situations are. It's one thing to have a singular community of no more than moderate size, like say Classical Athens, and have direct democracy, but I'm still not convinced that it can work in the larger scale. And yes yes, I know about Switzerland, but I think the minaret plebiscite demonstrates that direct democracy can be a damned scary thing. It's a lot easier to impose constitutional restraints on a representative legislative body than on a large number of people. How do you make a constitution that can protect the people form themselves.

Let's remember here that more important than democracy or the particular stylings of government is stability. You might deliver more democracy, but how do you guarantee stability? An unstable government is a worthless government.

Edited October 19, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The fisheries issue is a peculiarity of our constitution, formulated when fisheries were a far greater aspect of international relations than they are now. Clearly the solution would be for the Federal government to devolve West Coast fisheries management to BC. The Atlantic Fishery is a considerably different creature, so I'm not sure how well that would work on the other side of the country.

Transparency is a beautiful goal, the problem being that not even at the local level can one get absolute transparency. In fact, my observation is that local politics in some ways is a lot worse than federal and provincial politics. Parliament and the Legislatures tend to have a lot more stringent codes of ethics that city councils.

The question always is "What issues?" Do you think, for instance, that human rights issues like abortion or same-sex marriage should be left up to the public directly to decide? Do you think courts would be under greater pressure to accept the results of referenda in such situations? Would you accept that the courts still have the power to overturn issues brought up by referendum? And again, you invent new legislatures to deal with issues like this. Where's the transparency there, how do you prevent precisely the same forces that have created what you so dislike in politics currently from creeping into a citizen's assembly? What if it turned out the panel of experts was being influenced unduly by certain groups? Your checks and balances need checks and balances too.

I still don't see how your ideas would ultimately improve the situation. They would, it seems complicate horribly?

And, at the end of the day, what if all of this still didn't get you your way.

I'd say it's reflective of humanity itself. For better and for worse, people don't live in tomorrow. Long-term planning is very tough, and most people beyond their own life plans simply won't wrap their heads around grand societal goals. The fact is that long-term plans are the one thing that democracies tend to be not so good at, because there's no central authority imposing its vision over a sufficient length of time. You don't have Pharaohonic individuals who rule for a life time able to command society in a direction. Democracy is messy, period.

Um, that's largely how civilization works. The city, since the rise of Sumer, has been the central structure of culture, authority and trade. Believe me the country mouse distaste for the city mouse's overbearing ways is a feature of civilizations the world over. It has nothing to do with consumerism, and everything to do with the center of political and social gravity.

Aboriginal self rule is usually in fairly small communities or groups of communities, no more than a few thousand. I'm not sure how equatable the situations are. It's one thing to have a singular community of no more than moderate size, like say Classical Athens, and have direct democracy, but I'm still not convinced that it can work in the larger scale. And yes yes, I know about Switzerland, but I think the minaret plebiscite demonstrates that direct democracy can be a damned scary thing. It's a lot easier to impose constitutional restraints on a representative legislative body than on a large number of people. How do you make a constitution that can protect the people form themselves.

Let's remember here that more important than democracy or the particular stylings of government is stability. You might deliver more democracy, but how do you guarantee stability? An unstable government is a worthless government.

Okay, so how do you describe a minority government in Canada? How stable is that?

[political sun]

Having others eg "politicians" make decisions for us ? ... hmmmm

IF we had direct democracy such as internet referendum for the masses then ....

- Powerful Building developers might no longer be able to back and fund candidates at election time in order to get preferential treatment and their projects passed at city hall if the masses who cant be paid off have a say in passing that project.

- Wasting Tax money on consulting firm studies/polls/surveys to find out what the public want might not be needed anymore.

- Politicians might no longer be able to give sweet government contracts to their cousin Vinny from Jersey anymore.

- the Public might actually have a say in what sidewalks on their street get repaired , instead of some lazy kickback city supervisor ordering his buddy's construction company to dig up all the good sidewalks (twice in some cases) and billing the public while never repairing the ones that are actually cracked and in need of repair.

- the royal Ontario museum may have never been internationally voted as one of the top ten UGLIEST buildings in the world if the canadian public had a say in what is should look like.,,,Letting a fuel company sucker a northern canadian city into building a glass structure thats gonna cost the tax payers an arm and a leg to heat during our canadian winters, not likely if there was a referendum...canadians have been getting stung by rising cost of heating a home in the winter for some time now, so its not likely they would have voted in a referendum to waste their taxes on heating a glass house through a canadian winter...good move on behalf the fuel company..

- THEN POLITICIANS WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO VOTE THEMSELVES A RAISE IN PAY IF THE PUBLIC HAD THE ABILITY TO HAVE A DIRECT SAY ON THE MATTER...and that is probably the main reason why no politician or government employee is ever gonna want to bring up the topic of Direct democracy...ever!

will we the public be given the chance to vote in a online referendum on whether or not a politician can take his secretary out for a 250 dollar lunch or not ? .... LOL...

which beckons the question what should we consider too small to justify having a referendum on,,,Yet enough of these "250" lunches and it certainly adds up especially if all the politicians are or have been doing it to some degree,,,

the key is a mix of online transparency , referendum, and the ability of the public to have direct visible say on the issues.. direct say means that their voices/opinions on the matter are heard and recorded online for all to see, so that combined with online referendums and alot more transparency/account might be a way to get it to work ???...,,,maybe?

cheers.

Edited October 19, 2010 by political sun

[ToadBrother]

Having others eg "politicians" make decisions for us ? ... hmmmm

IF we had direct democracy such as internet referendum for the masses then ....

- Powerful Building developers might no longer be able to back and fund candidates at election time in order to get preferential treatment and their projects passed at city hall if the masses who cant be paid off have a say in passing that project.

Instead they could hire hackers to do man-in-the-middle attacks on SSL-secured voting sites via crooked Chinese CAs. If you don't know what that means, it means in simple terms "online democracy is a bad thing".

- Wasting Tax money on consulting firm studies/polls/surveys to find out what the public want might not be needed anymore.

But we'd still be ruled by polling numbers.

- Politicians might no longer be able to give sweet government contracts to their cousin Vinny from Jersey anymore.

And you're seriously believing that there still wouldn't be some sort of executive that could influence contracts?

- the Public might actually have a say in what sidewalks on their street get repaired , instead of some lazy kickback city supervisor ordering his buddy's construction company to dig up all the good sidewalks (twice in some cases) and billing the public while never repairing the ones that are actually cracked and in need of repair.

And what happens when the public wants all the sidewalks repaired and the money and resources isn't there?

- the royal Ontario museum may have never been internationally voted as one of the top ten UGLIEST buildings in the world if the canadian public had a say in what is should look like.,,,Letting a fuel company sucker a northern canadian city into building a glass structure thats gonna cost the tax payers an arm and a leg to heat during our canadian winters, not likely if there was a referendum...canadians have been getting stung by rising cost of heating a home in the winter for some time now, so its not likely they would have voted in a referendum to waste their taxes on heating a glass house through a canadian winter...good move on behalf the fuel company..

Populist "art" is often no better.

- THEN POLITICIANS WOULD NO LONGER BE ABLE TO VOTE THEMSELVES A RAISE IN PAY IF THE PUBLIC HAD THE ABILITY TO HAVE A DIRECT SAY ON THE MATTER...and that is probably the main reason why no politician or government employee is ever gonna want to bring up the topic of Direct democracy...ever!

Instead you would have a million special interests all trying to give themselves raises.

will we the public be given the chance to vote in a online referendum on whether or not a politician can take his secretary out for a 250 dollar lunch or not ? .... LOL...

Are you imagining that direct democracy means every use of an expense account has to be voted on in a referendum?

which beckons the question what should we consider too small to justify having a referendum on,,,Yet enough of these "250" lunches and it certainly adds up especially if all the politicians are or have been doing it to some degree,,,

Well, I guess if we all just want to sitting around hitting the "yes" or "no" buttons, we could even vote on when public employees taking bathroom breaks. Imagine the power of such democracy!

the key is a mix of online transparency , referendum, and the ability of the public to have direct visible say on the issues.. direct say means that their voices/opinions on the matter are heard and recorded online for all to see, so that combined with online referendums and alot more transparency/account might be a way to get it to work ???...,,,maybe?

cheers.

The key is to have a public that gives a damn. I see no reason to believe that direct democracy would encourage that, but I can imagine a whole host of disastrous situations. I for one wouldn't work for the government under such a system.

[ToadBrother]

Okay, so how do you describe a minority government in Canada? How stable is that?

The stability of the legislative branch is only part of it. The executive functions of government still go on regardless of majority or minority. But if you basically take out the safety valve between the public and the executive (ie. civil service) I think you risk that stability.

[political sun]

Instead they could hire hackers to do man-in-the-middle attacks on SSL-secured voting sites via crooked Chinese CAs. If you don't know what that means, it means in simple terms "online democracy is a bad thing".

But we'd still be ruled by polling numbers.

And you're seriously believing that there still wouldn't be some sort of executive that could influence contracts?

And what happens when the public wants all the sidewalks repaired and the money and resources isn't there?

Populist "art" is often no better.

Instead you would have a million special interests all trying to give themselves raises.

Are you imagining that direct democracy means every use of an expense account has to be voted on in a referendum?

Well, I guess if we all just want to sitting around hitting the "yes" or "no" buttons, we could even vote on when public employees taking bathroom breaks. Imagine the power of such democracy!

The key is to have a public that gives a damn. I see no reason to believe that direct democracy would encourage that, but I can imagine a whole host of disastrous situations. I for one wouldn't work for the government under such a system.

your rebuttals are good for the most , i wont challenge them as I agree with them as well to a degree. So perhaps full online direct democracy is an extreme and it too can be in some situations a very unfair way of trying to be fair, yet on the other hand to leave the decision making for many thousands of people in the hands of one elected or appointed individual who may or may not be honest is also an extremely flawed system,,,,I really do think its time especially with the internet present to try and work on a blend of both ways. so that perhaps the individual can be better kept honest, while the voice/opinion of the public can be better heard and acknowledged by the government and the rest of the public...

let me give an example of what i mean by visibly acknowledging the public ,

We had a councilor in our region who used to never return phone calls to answer concerns/complaints from the residents but no body knew or had any way of knowing this was happening..

There arose an issue in the community, but each person in the community just thought that it was only themself who was concerned about the issue. Each person(great many of them) phoned the councilor to complain about that issue but never got a reply from the councilor. And so they just thought that only they had phoned and that it was just them self who were not getting a reply

well time went by then something happened in the community and the community all came together at a meeting over a whole new separate issue altogether. When they came together they also began to talk to each other about that older past issue , and low and behold they all found out that they had all been calling the councilor about that same past issue and that nobody was getting any return calls back from the councilor,,,an entire community was being ignored by a delinquent councilor and nobody would have ever found out if not but for a separate tragedy that had brought the entire community together at a meeting where they could talk and share information.

Now if their were a place online that people could post their complaints/requests/worries to the councilor or other branches of the government so that all the other citizens could also see it posted too then that would be a form of highly visible acknowledgment. The government and the public could openly view all the concerns in the community so there would be no excuse if an issue was of high concern to the public to go unaddressed one way or another...

that may be one form of very basic transparency, simply to publicly acknowledge the concerns of the individual citizens and or the entire community and make their concerns visible and in public record via the net.

Edited October 20, 2010 by political sun

[eyeball]

If things are that bad, you have other options. Protest your cause. If the government is mismanaging things that badly, tell the opposition parties to take it up.

My years of protesting are over. I feel like the tired hungry old buzzard who once said, patience my ass its time to kill something.

Transparency is a beautiful goal, the problem being that not even at the local level can one get absolute transparency. In fact, my observation is that local politics in some ways is a lot worse than federal and provincial politics. Parliament and the Legislatures tend to have a lot more stringent codes of ethics that city councils.

That's not my observation. I've lived in the same regional district/small town of 5000 people or so for the last 37 years and I can't recall anything like the corruption associated with federal and provincial politics. I've been involved with local politics at the regional district level for 25 years and had my ear close enough to the ground that I think I would have seen or heard of something really overt by now. I've been aware of some nepotism on native reserves in the past but not since self government has softened the protection that fed/prov DIA's seemed to afford band councils in the old days.

What I have often seen in my region are attempts by distant politicians and government officials to manipulate and play different local interests off against one another. I've seen distant governments concede to the unsustainable extraction of natural resources by large distant corporations with little if any tie whatsoever to the local community or regard for the environment hereabouts. Quite often you'll see senior managers of these operations shmooze their way, usually through the Chambers of Commerce or some such venue, into the local political scene and try to bump and steer it in a manner favourable to their interests, these quickly stand out like sore thumbs in a small population.

My region received a lot of funding from federal and provincial governments during the collapse of fishing and logging for a variety of things and if there was ever an opportunity for corruption to take place it would have been then. But I'm not aware of local politicians passing or receiving envelopes of cash under the table or outright lying to their constituents or anything like that at all.

There was an investigation by HRDC into a local society's handling of grant money. The investigation occurred when the loudest protesting and most probing questions into the policies that were blowing our industries and communities to smithereens were happening. Go figure. The investigation reached deep into the lives of very well respected locals with generations long roots and ties to the region - at the very moment they were spear-heading a good part of the local movement to do something about what was happening to us. That's what I call corruption. The investigation went nowhere.

I think there is a certain natural transparency that is an inherent feature of smaller jurisdictions. The bigger a jurisdiction is the harder it is to see. Perhaps if real authority and responsibility for most of the important decisions were in the hands of local governments, the decision making process would be that much less open to abuse and like people in an elevator, everybody would know a lot sooner if someone crapped their pants along the way.

Instead they could hire hackers to do man-in-the-middle attacks on SSL-secured voting sites via crooked Chinese CAs. If you don't know what that means, it means in simple terms "online democracy is a bad thing".

What we really need are ethical hackers and things like Wikileaks to penetrate and reveal government secrets, the more the better. Information terrorism and rational anarchy might be the ticket.

Edited October 20, 2010 by eyeball

[ToadBrother]

I think there is a certain natural transparency that is an inherent feature of smaller jurisdictions. The bigger a jurisdiction is the harder it is to see. Perhaps if real authority and responsibility for most of the important decisions were in the hands of local governments, the decision making process would be that much less open to abuse and like people in an elevator, everybody would know a lot sooner if someone crapped their pants along the way.

Not my experience at all. I have found city councils to be much more often dens of inequity. Look at the overdevelopment in the Lower Mainland. That didn't happen through transparent local government, it happened with developers and civic politicians being in cahoots (or in some cases being one and the same).

What you want is a perfect government. It's a laudable goal, but not an achievable one.

What we really need are ethical hackers and things like Wikileaks to penetrate and reveal government secrets, the more the better. Information terrorism and rational anarchy might be the ticket.

Like, say, how you voted in the last electronic election, or how much you paid in income tax, or your sources of income? If there are ethical hackers, there will be unethical hackers.

[Guest TrueMetis]

No system is perfect, but there are probably a billion people who utilize such systems everyday, for their own personal affairs. Surely you would find some collective trust in it.

You ignore that all those systems aren't just not perfect but they are also notoriously easy to get into. One good hacker is all it would take.

[Smallc]

In your opinion that is.

No it isn't. There isn't massive or even a small amount of push for what you want.

[eyeball]

Not my experience at all. I have found city councils to be much more often dens of inequity. Look at the overdevelopment in the Lower Mainland. That didn't happen through transparent local government, it happened with developers and civic politicians being in cahoots (or in some cases being one and the same).

Obviously a jurisdiction's corruption index is a function of both it's size and its population density.

What you want is a perfect government. It's a laudable goal, but not an achievable one.

I never said perfect, I said smaller more autonomous and transparent one's and given today's technology that is far more achievable than it was in the day when our system of democracy was born.

Like, say, how you voted in the last electronic election, or how much you paid in income tax, or your sources of income? If there are ethical hackers, there will be unethical hackers.

No doubt there already is.

Obviously transparency like democracy taken too far would result in another dystopia but I'm so sick of this one I definitely think it's worth going a lot farther than we have.

[ToadBrother]

Obviously a jurisdiction's corruption index is a function of both it's size and its population density.

I've seen it on very small town councils as well. Corruption doesn't have a lower limit. In BC there have long been calls to create rules of ethics equivalent to those found in Victoria and Ottawa for municipalities and regional districts.

I never said perfect, I said smaller more autonomous and transparent one's and given today's technology that is far more achievable than it was in the day when our system of democracy was born.

I'm just very concerned about where that leads in a country like Canada. Switzerland is, historically and demographically, a very different place, and I think the canton model would probably spell the end of the country as a united entity.

Obviously transparency like democracy taken too far would result in another dystopia but I'm so sick of this one I definitely think it's worth going a lot farther than we have.

I think the trick is a balance. Tossing out our system in favor of something that has essentially only been tested in one country, and has not always given what I would consider desirable results, seems a fool's errand. Political systems are best reformed, and not revolutionized.

Look at the HST issue in BC. As much as the BC Liberals deserve everything that's happening to them, I find the idea that the public at large could basically decide complex and often difficult issues like tax policy pretty frightening. If you think that all that direct democracy is all that advantageous, look at California, whose initiative system has made the state nearly ungovernable, and pretty much means annual budgetary crises.

Edited October 20, 2010 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

You ignore that all those systems aren't just not perfect but they are also notoriously easy to get into. One good hacker is all it would take.

The SSL system that is the back bone of online banking and the candidate for online voting has already been shown to have a number of flaws, most importantly in the last year or so has been highly questionable certification authorities (CAs) out of China. The problem is that a lot of direct democracy advocates who want to use the Internet do not seem to really understand the vulnerabilities. An online election would be nothing more than a big neon sign in cyberspace saying "HACK ME!"

[eyeball]

I'm just very concerned about where that leads in a country like Canada. Switzerland is, historically and demographically, a very different place, and I think the canton model would probably spell the end of the country as a united entity.

In case you haven't noticed Canada is becoming less united anyway. Why should be obvious enough.

I think the trick is a balance. Tossing out our system in favor of something that has essentially only been tested in one country, and has not always given what I would consider desirable results, seems a fool's errand. Political systems are best reformed, and not revolutionized.

When for crying out loud, in my next incarnation or the one after that?

Look at the HST issue in BC. As much as the BC Liberals deserve everything that's happening to them, I find the idea that the public at large could basically decide complex and often difficult issues like tax policy pretty frightening. If you think that all that direct democracy is all that advantageous, look at California, whose initiative system has made the state nearly ungovernable, and pretty much means annual budgetary crises.

I have looked at California and Switzerland and I recognize that yes some things can be taken to far but I refuse to accept this as an excuse for the multi-generational incrementalism you seem to cleave to.

Like I said above, patience my ass.

[ToadBrother]

When for crying out loud, in my next incarnation or the one after that?

It took over two hundred years from Edward I's Model Parliament to Henry VIII's admitting that he could not reasonably tax without the support of Parliament. It took another 150 years or so for Charles I to give that a try, and another half century after the Personal Rule before Parliament gained supremacy over the Crown. It took another 100 years before the rise of the modern party system and another century or more before emancipation became universal in Britain and Canada (much longer in Canada because it wasn't until 1960 that Natives gained the right to vote).

You have to accept that democracy is a project, not a goal.

[eyeball]

You have to accept that democracy is a project, not a goal.

You do realize how much that's sounds like an edict I hope.