A New Kind Of Democracy

[Greyem]

Hello everyone, this is my first post here. My name is Greyem, I'm 17 and as an adolescant soon to enter the world of politics by being able to vote I've been taking it upon myself to learn about it and find a well developed opinion within myself about it. In my journey to be a politically educated person I have seen a lot of problems, not just with individual politicians and Canadian politics, but the democratic system itself. It being election time, I think it is important to voice this idea I have, as it pertains so deeply to the connection between Canadians and their leaders, what I have learned is called governance.

Ever since I have started following politics, I have found the politicians involved, or at least the media employees depicting them, to make me nostalgic of a time when I didn't know how to socialize, back in elementary school, when the bickering and competitive nature of politics was easily found in my school yard's recess period. "My ball is better than your ball." "I can jump higher than you can." "My political platform is better for Canadians than yours is." "Your opinions don't help the people the way mine do." "You are less competent than I am." these moods run rampant in our school yards and in parliament, from what I hear. Am I simply young? Have I been misinformed as to the true nature of politics? For the purpose of this conversation, let us assume that I have not.

The problem with this kind of competition, is that peoples egos are on the line. When one person really wants their ball to be better than another person's ball, their opinion to be better than another person's opinion, they tend to make that opinion, that ball, quite valuable in their mind's eye. Sometimes a person can forget why they value their opinions, except that those opinions belong to them. In politics it is especially important I believe to remember why one's opinions are valuable (because they are valuable for the harmony and happiness of the people you govern), lest you become so attached to your own opinion that you become detached from the Canadian public. For example, it can be fairly stated that no political party values the wait times that people must endure to receive medical treatment, I assume. However, it being election time, the Conservative party is seen as the party who has really taken priority on this issue, and it can be generalized that a person who values cutting wait times for medical care as priority in this election would vote Conservative. This is a very simple look at the way values play a part in governance, in the relationship between potential political leaders and citizens.

This kind of system makes sense at first glance, the people are given the opportunity to choose who they want to lead them based on the shared values between them. What could go wrong? Well, the people who want to lead the Canadian people can lie. If they aren't honest about what they value and what they believe in, then the public is investing in a mutual relationship of trust that is, in reality, one sided. It's like the citizens are speaking with open minds, open hearts, but really, their leaders are only listening with the specific motive of getting these citizens' votes. A critical question must now be asked: do politicians value the citizens' votes more than the issues on which these citizens vote? Will a politician change their platform, their beliefs and declared values, in order to gain popularity and power, in order to fulfill some personal motive or vendetta? Personally, I think that this argument could go on too long for me to get into, and that is not what I'm here to talk about. Obviously certain political parties have personal motives or vendettas fueling their platform, Bloc Quebecois has sovereignty in mind, the Conservatives have national defence, the Green Party has environmental sustainability, etc. and all of these motives are obviously going to influence the platforms of these parties. At the same time all of these parties are in politics in the first place, so they must have some general and sincere desire to fulfill the desires of Canadians regardless of personal motives. And it must be known that when I say "personal motives" I don't mean that Paul Martin or Stephen Harper alone have these personal motives, they are obviously motives shared by themselves, by their party, and a large number of Canadians. The real problem in this motive-fuelled and value-fuelled politics arises, I believe, when it becomes more multi-dimensional than a single issue.

I mentioned earlier the issue of wait times for medical care. Let's throw in the issue of environmental sustainability and I'll show why I think this democratic system suddenly becomes problematic. Let's hypothesize that I am of legal voting age, I believe in environmental sustainability and at the same time cutting waiting times for health care. The Conservative party has promised to cut health care waiting times. The Green Party has promised to improve environmental sustainability. Neither party has given much thought to the other issue, Convervatives may have mentioned they support environmental sustainability, but have made no promises or engagements, and vice versa with the Green Party and health care. Now, even in this extremely limited and representative sample of an example, who do I vote for? I am put into a position in which I have to compromise my political voice by either speaking on behalf of my value of environmental sustainability, or on behalf of my value for shorter wait times for health care. I suppose that if I really believe in one of these values over the other in importance, the decision is not so hard to make, but my voice is still be lost on one of these issues.

What it comes down to is that people choose a structure of values, political platforms, and the citizens are forced to choose between these limited structures of value. Now, this works fine if the political parties and their platforms are finely in tune with the public they wish to govern, and that may well be the case here, but that isn't what I see. At first glance, my reaction to the question "do politicians value the citizens' votes more than the issues on which these citizens vote?" is yes. From what I have seen, and just from a general intuitive feeling when I witness a politician at work, it seems to me that they value the ability to wield power through gaining votes, over the issues they represent at heart. That's a personal opinion ONLY. Because I believe this, it appears to me that the political platforms and their parties are NOT in tune with the desires and feelings of the common Canadian citizen, and therefor, the system has failed in it's most primary objective: to serve the people.

That is what politics is all about right? Serving the public? I sort of went on intuition when it came to that. No one told me that was what it was for, I didn't read it in a newspaper, I didn't learn it from a book. If I got that wrong, then forget it, stop reading, I made a mistake, so nevermind. But if I'm right... the democratic system is the allegedly most valued and competent system to serve the people. I go to dictionary.com and type in democracy.

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

These will collectively serve as my definition for democracy. That first definition clearly describes our system right now, we have a government in Canada exercised by the people through elected representatives. Now, returning to my intial impression of politics, remember that feeling of being whisked back to my elementary schoolyard where everyone was trying to one-up each other by how valuable they were? The problem that makes so many kids unhappy with themselves and with each other in the schoolyard is that when they say "My ball is better", which is to say "I value my ball more than yours and you should too because what I say is true", is that the ball is only representational to some idea that the person values. Is that idea that the person has that balls are better if they are round, or if they're bright, or if they are really good for playing basketball, or really good for playing soccer? Let's take this analogy into politics now. When Paul Martin says "My platform is better than the Conservative platform because what I say is good and what Stephen says is not", his platform is only representational to an idea he has about... what? Is it about what government should be? Is it winning as many seats and beating his opponents in the competition for leading the nation? Is it about good health care? Is it about feeling accomplished when he retires? Is it about national safety? Is it about personal pride? Is it about serving the people? The problem here is that we can only know based on what Mr.Martin tells us, and as long as he has something to gain from what he tells us, and something to lose, we can never trust him to be honest unless he can trust us to give him what he wants, whatever that may be. Personally, I think what's wrong with this system here is that it does not encourage mutual trust, it does not encourage moral action, it encourages competition. Politics is the realm of leading the people. When it comes to the institution that leads our people, if one person loses, does not the entire nation lose? If only one representational group of a limited set of values is making the big decisions, what of all the many Canadians who had invested their faith in the other representational groups? Do they go unheard? By what standards do we define "Majority rule"? More than half? Is it fair to allow 49% of the populace to go unheard?

I do realize that even when the winning party has been elected, it's not like the other parties are left out of the governmental process, but the priority issues that certain parties concern themselves with beyond the concern of other parties are left out. And furthermore, when electing a federal government who represents the entirety of Canada, which is a vast and complex connection of different cultures, territories and values, many people are left out of the process by numbers alone. Part of this problem is alleviated by the provincial and municipal elections, but still these elections are based on the same process, and the same problems can be seen on a smaller scale. Instead of people being divided by values, by cultures, and by territories, people are divided by communities, denominations, and circumstances. Still a person is forced to vote in favour of a person who represents the closest approximation to their personal values, and the bonds of trust and mutual companionship in governance are weak, at best.

Now, if you’ve followed me thus far with some sense of understanding, some feeling that we are on the same page and that what I am saying is not inherently wrong or completely misguided, it could be fair to say that, at least to you and me, a different kind of system is in order. This one is far from ideal, and why should we ever cease the search for an ideal government? It may be impossible, or at least very far off, but if we don’t at least look, we are doomed to stagnation and susceptible even to de-evolution.

I am a young guy, I only have seventeen years of worldly experience in my name, so it could be that what my mind conjures up towards filling the holes of a seemingly flawed system is too naïve to be plausible. But it could also be that a fresh young mind, not yet so hindered by the constrictive realities and traditions of politics might be just the kind of vessel through which new and innovative ideas may bring this sick and dying political system to health again. And it may start with one innovative idea, but this very idea depends on ideas like it to survive.

This idea, I will talk about tomorrow, as it has taken me quite a while to write out this first part of my opinion on how and why the system does not work, and I'm too tired to get into the long task of explaining what a child believes is a moral and sensible method of governance. In the meantime, I would be grateful for any input, ideas, or critisism. I don't think I'll read any replies until after I've written up the other half of this piece, as it might alter the way I propose the idea to you. So, until tomorrow (or even the next day if this idea is really big!), thank you for reading what I have to say, and good will to all of you.

Greyem : )

[Guest eureka]

What you have to do is expand your thinking in some ways. But not in one post!

For healthcare waiting tomes, for example, all parties promise to reduce them. What you have to assess is how they propose to do it and what effect on toher things the proposals will have.

If you have read any of my posts, you will know that I am unalterably opposed to the Conservative programme since it is class based and likely, in my opinion, to result in a feteioration of care for the average Canadian.

[Montgomery Burns]

Are you sure you're only 17? When I was 17, I was only interested in getting lai....er, never mind.

Regarding your question about democracy, Winston Churchill once said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of govt except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." I suspect he was comparing democracy to the other political ideologies that Europe gave this world--Communism, National Socialism (Nazism), and Fascism.

As for negative campaigning, that is a staple of Canadian politics. Same with the US and probably all countries. I have not forgotten when the NDP knocked on my elderly Grandmother's door and scared the hell out of her by telling her that the conservative Saskatchewan Party was going to cut healthcare if they were elected. I still remember my anger driving to work and seeing that NDP billboard saying that the NDP would not lower minimum wage like the Sask Party was going to (a Sask Party member once made an off-the-cuff remark that some people are willing to work for less than minimum wage--which is true).

Remember when the federal Liberals ran that ad during the 2004 election showing a gun pointing towards you when the Conservative Party was mentioned?

All parties use negative campaigning. The trick is find a balance between negative campaigning and having a positive message.

I favor a conservative/libertarian rightwing party because they are not based on class envy like the leftwing parties--who are always trying to take the money of hardworking productive people and giving it to the non-productive. When I say the non-productive, I mean the lazy people out there...and YES, some people are just damn lazy. I also find that rightwingers tend to be realists as opposed to leftwingers whose arguments tend to be based on emotions.

I also believe that one, if not the most important thing, a govt should do is protect its citizens from its enemies. Conservatives are noted for advocating a reasonably strong defense/military. Leftwingers are usually noted for being weak on defense, because they seem to have this utopian idea that if you give dictators/despots/tyrants a nice flower (an organic one, of course) and sing Kumbaya to them, that the bad guys will do them no harm. History has proven that this is naivety of the highest order.

I am also a big proponent of personal responsibility. I loathe big govt because I believe that nobody can mange my money as well as I do. I have friends/acquaintances who work for the govt and even they will, grudgingly, admit that the govt is very wasteful and inefficient. They will tell me--after a few drinks--that a private business would fail if ran like the govt. Private business is much more effective and efficient. I also believe in competition because it results in companies being forced to become more efficient; govts are often monopolies and have little or no incentive to be efficient. Excuse my constant use of "efficient"--it was my favorite word from my Business Administration classes.

Fiscally, I am very conservative/libertarian. I believe the more money that people are allowed to keep, the more that they will spend/invest. This results in greater economic activity, which results in businesses having to hire more people, and/or expand. We all can see how the US economy is absolutely rocking since Bush twice lowered taxes. Indeed, their last quarter was revised to a 4.3% GDP growth and they created 212,000 jobs last month. It only took 27 months for the US to create 5 million jobs after Bush's 2nd taxcut in the spring of 2003. I was pleased to see Stephen Harper say--the other day--that he considers tax money to be money belonging to Canadians. Reminded me of what Bush said a couple of years ago in response to a question from the always hostile-to-conservatives liberal media--"Doggone it (he's a Texan )--it is the people's money and I think they should be able to keep more of their money."

I also believe in personal freedom. I think parents should have the choice of daycare, not being forced to pay $5 billion in taxes to put their children in govt-run daycare centres--whether you want to or not.

I'm not a huge fan of socialist healthcare, but I do recognize that it is a staple of Canada. As you probably know, we continue to spend more and more billions on govt-run healthcare and the waiting lists get longer and our per capita ratio of MRIs and CatScans is embarrasingly low compared to the US.

Did you know that private healthcare is illegal in Canada? Private healthcare is illegal in 2 other countries in the world; the totalitarian Communist countries of North Korea and Cuba. Nice company we have, huh?

I believe that private healthcare should be an option for Canadians.

Socially, I am moderate--at least that is the results I get when I take those political quizzes.

Anyways, I commend your interest in politics--for such a young lad.

[newbie]

I also believe that one, if not the most important thing, a govt should do is protect its citizens from its enemies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Boy, as if thay ain't been heard enought here. Please thank Dubya for that because before 911 WE HAD NO ENEMIES.

[cybercoma]

I also believe that one, if not the most important thing, a govt should do is protect its citizens from its enemies.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Boy, as if thay ain't been heard enought here. Please thank Dubya for that because before 911 WE HAD NO ENEMIES.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Except for the countless other times Americans were attacked by terrorists, we won't count those, right?

[Guest eureka]

Do you have to bring your "Right Wing" fanaticism into everything, MB. If there were even a word of truth or reality in what you think, it might have some value.

It is interesting that ypou compare Churchillian democracy to totalitarianism -that is not what Churchill was doing, btw, when you pour out such anti-democratic " i deas"as you hold so dear. Even Churchill held very different socia; voews to yours. He would have been dusturbed by your "tooth and claw" view of the perfect world.

[normanchateau]

I also find that rightwingers tend to be realists as opposed to leftwingers whose arguments tend to be based on emotions. 

No doubt your finding was based on an objective and scientific evaluation of the evidence.

[tml12]

Are you sure you're only 17?  When I was 17, I was only interested in getting lai....er, never mind. 

Regarding your question about democracy, Winston Churchill once said, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of govt except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."  I suspect he was comparing democracy to the other political ideologies that Europe gave this world--Communism, National Socialism (Nazism), and Fascism.

As for negative campaigning, that is a staple of Canadian politics.  Same with the US and probably all countries.  I have not forgotten when the NDP knocked on my elderly Grandmother's door and scared the hell out of her by telling her that the conservative Saskatchewan Party was going to cut healthcare if they were elected.  I still remember my anger driving to work and seeing that NDP billboard saying that the NDP would not lower minimum wage like the Sask Party was going to (a Sask Party member once made an off-the-cuff remark that some people are willing to work for less than minimum wage--which is true).

Remember when the federal Liberals ran that ad during the 2004 election showing a gun pointing towards you when the Conservative Party was mentioned?

All parties use negative campaigning.  The trick is find a balance between negative campaigning and having a positive message.

I favor a conservative/libertarian rightwing party because they are not based on class envy like the leftwing parties--who are always trying to take the money of hardworking productive people and giving it to the non-productive.  When I say the non-productive, I mean the lazy people out there...and YES, some people are just damn lazy.  I also find that rightwingers tend to be realists as opposed to leftwingers whose arguments tend to be based on emotions. 

I also believe that one, if not the most important thing, a govt should do is protect its citizens from its enemies.  Conservatives are  noted for advocating a reasonably strong defense/military.  Leftwingers are usually noted for being weak on defense, because they seem to have this utopian idea that if you give dictators/despots/tyrants a nice flower (an organic one, of course) and sing Kumbaya to them, that the bad guys will do them no harm.  History has proven that this is naivety of the highest order.

I am also a big proponent of personal responsibility.  I loathe big govt because I believe that nobody can mange my money as well as I do.  I have friends/acquaintances who work for the govt and even they will, grudgingly, admit that the govt is very wasteful and inefficient.  They will tell me--after a few drinks--that a private business would fail if ran like the govt.  Private business is much more effective and efficient.  I also believe in competition because it results in companies being forced to become more efficient; govts are often monopolies and have little or no incentive to be efficient.  Excuse my constant use of "efficient"--it was my favorite word from my Business Administration classes. 

Fiscally, I am very conservative/libertarian.  I believe the more money that people are allowed to keep, the more that they will spend/invest.  This results in greater economic activity, which results in businesses having to hire more people, and/or expand.  We all can see how the US economy is absolutely rocking since Bush twice lowered taxes.  Indeed, their last quarter was revised to a 4.3% GDP growth and they created 212,000 jobs last month.  It only took 27 months for the US to create 5 million jobs after Bush's 2nd taxcut in the spring of 2003.  I was pleased to see Stephen Harper say--the other day--that he considers tax money to be money belonging to Canadians.  Reminded me of what Bush said a couple of years ago in response to a question from the always hostile-to-conservatives liberal media--"Doggone it (he's a Texan  )--it is the people's money and I think they should be able to keep more of their money."

I also believe in personal freedom.  I think parents should have the choice of daycare, not being forced to pay $5 billion in taxes to put their children in govt-run daycare centres--whether you want to or not.

I'm not a huge fan of socialist healthcare, but I do recognize that it is a staple of Canada.  As you probably know, we continue to spend more and more billions on govt-run healthcare and the waiting lists get longer and our per capita ratio of MRIs and CatScans is embarrasingly low compared to the US.

Did you know that private healthcare is illegal in Canada?  Private healthcare is illegal in 2 other countries in the world; the totalitarian Communist countries of North Korea and Cuba.  Nice company we have, huh? 

I believe that private healthcare should be an option for Canadians.

Socially, I am moderate--at least that is the results I get when I take those political quizzes.

Anyways, I commend your interest in politics--for such a young lad. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

SOCIALLY: I am moderate, right-leaning (by Quebec standards). I am pro-choice, favour marijuana decriminalization, but believe state cannot legalize gay marriage, etc. Strong military and tough on serious crime approach VERY important.

ECONOMICALLY: I am moderate, left-leaning. I favour a strong community and social programs BUT also a flat, progressive tax and not such a huge emphasis on universiality. Sorry folks, communism can only work on an island of 20.

Tests tell me this means I am centrist/moderate communitarian. That's fine, because I am emphasis the community as long as individual rights are respected. What federal party does this translate into? I dunno but I will probably vote Conservative...but in my riding that means nothing. Cons came in fourth (I think last time) and my MP is a four-term Liberal.

[Greyem]

Hello again everyone. It was good to read your replies. I would appreciate if we could keep the right-wing/left-wing bickering out of this topic, as the entire intention of my posting here is to offer new ideas that everyone can productively critisize and ameliorate, not simply discount for their misguided content. We all have been guided by past actions and experiences, but that doesn't mean our ideas are entirely invalid to one another. We are all Canadians, we should all try and find a common ground on that fact.

To answer some questions, yes I am sure I'm seventeen.

I too believe that Canadians must be protected from their enemies, that the government must nurture and protect it's citizens, but I believe that in the end the goal of government should be to have no enemies. If two countries can disagree on an issue and still agree to be friends, it is better than agreeing only to be enemies. As for other issues, I am not so educated on the platforms and methods of reforming the various social systems of our lives to really know how they should be dealt with. I will learn, in time. I'm young, so give me time!

Today, staying home with a common cold, was a good day to give a quick rough draft to my idea of a new kind of democracy. I hope this will spread some more light on why I wrote all I did yesterday, and perhaps inspire some more productive and innovative conversation here. Keep in mind, it is a very rough draft to my idea, and I am also dealing with a cold, so it isn't exactly explained the way I wanted it too, but it is satisfactory for starting some conversation here. Thank you for your interest so far : )

I am a young guy, I only have seventeen years of worldly experience in my name, so it could be that what my mind conjures up towards filling the holes of a seemingly flawed system is too naïve to be plausible. But it could also be that a fresh young mind, not yet so hindered by the constrictive realities of politics might be just the kind of vessel through which new and innovative idea may bring this sick and dying political system to health again. And it may start with one innovative idea, but this very idea depends on ideas like it to survive.

That is the whole concept I will try to put forth…

Government is the institution through which we live, it involves every facet of our lives, and as such it is only natural that we as the public should have complete freedom to change this government in a communal and trust-binding way. Right now, the government is representational, and governance (from what I’ve been taught about that particularly complicated word) takes many forms, a couple of examples of which are voting and the civil servants who make the government function. What seems to me to be the most practical form of democracy is to get rid of this representational system and to make the values of the people and the values of the government very real. Let the voters show their values on life through voting on those values, not on people who claim to represent those values for whatever secret reasons they may or may not have. Can you imagine representing yourself by your vote, not voting for someone else to represent you? Wouldn’t that make sense? The implications are many, I will have to get into them. First of all, if government were non-representational, what happens to all the people who work so hard and spend so much time campaigning and living up to that representation of the Canadian people? Also, what happens to the civil servants who serve those representatives and the decisions they make on the public's behalf? Their role would become unnecessary, so what would the new definition of a politician be? What would the new definition of a civil servant be?

This is where I think my idea really becomes interesting and productive. If the voting process were not regimented but rather were an open forum method for Canadians to tell the government what they wanted, then Canadians would represent themselves. With Canadians representing themselves and what they believe, what they value, some people may fear that the country would run itself into the ground. For example, giving Canadians responsibility over all the issues of their life might lead them to become over-idealistic, to vote in favour of, for example, an absolutely one-hundred per-cent perfect health care system, and then when a natural disaster strikes, for example, there is no money to pay for the country’s repairs because it’s all been spent on what was a good idea at the time. This kind of system is not sustainable, it’s perfect for a short while and then people get so egotistical and short sighted that it just ruins itself. This is where government must step in. The populace must have complete responsibility over itself, but this populace must include government. The people who take part in government will not be people in a hierarchy of leadership, competing and struggling to achieve stability in the name of the public. Instead, the government will require no competition, no struggle, only innovation and communal contribution. If the Canadian people are to represent themselves in their desires, there must be some form of governance to decide what is reasonable and what is not. Right now, the government knows what is reasonable because the government knows how much things cost, how much the country is capable of, what is possible and what is a little too far out to accomplish. Why should only the government know about these things? Why shouldn’t every citizen know the status of their country, and be able to take part in it’s reform with full participation? Right now the politicians and civil servants has a specific kind of education, a political education that not everyone is so gifted to receive.

What if, instead of politicians using their political education to fight each other in favour of a perfect political philosophy, politicians simply educated the entire nation? What if the role of politics was to lead, not by representation, but by education? Instead of hearing Paul Martin say what he would do if we gave him the power to lead us, we would hear him tell us how much power we have for ourselves. Politicians would educate the public on the status of their nation, their lives, their international cooperation, their economy, everything. The public would decide by voting on all of these issues when it was time to change one of them, and how that change would happen. In this way, the politicians have nothing to win or lose from a vote, except for their idea, and it is these innovative and creative ideas that politicians put forth that are crucial to the development of a nation. If the public supports these ideas, they become incredibly valuable, incomparable to a representational political platform or party.

Let’s put this scenario into hypothetical action. Imagine that politicians have been doing a lot of talking through the newspapers and the mainstream media, sending out pamphlets and letters and things, not to ask for your vote for them, but to ask for your opinion on a topic. The topic will be, for this example, environmental sustainability. These news articles, interviews, pamphlets and letters give you information about the environmental status of the country, what is happening in the short term, what is expected to happen in the long term, what has happened in the past. It outlines different ideas on all fronts in detail, the idea of changing the laws for certain acts or changing the standards for some manufacturing or changing the programs for recycling, all possibilities are exhaustively researched so that the public may be informed. This research is very exhaustive, unbiased, and inclusive, because government is inclusive, communal. With no competition to take leadership, all people have the opportunity to enter politics and do nothing more than give their ideas to the issues. Collaboratively, politicians create an educational campaign to empower the Canadian people when they go to vote on a specific issue. Canadians are then able to take it upon themselves to mould and create the nation that they want. They vote on the issue, the numbers come in, and another part of government, what we now call civil servants carrying out the politicians bidding, would instead be an independent force. This part of government would receive the decisions of Canadians and carry them out to the best of their ability with whatever resources the nation provides itself with by it’s own self-motivated decisions.

This kind of voting would be so inclusive that problems of minorities could be left behind as a problem of the past. While a vote might take place in a certain province, for example, in favour of a certain issue, each vote could carry with it the location, and identity of the person who has invested their time into that value. If the numbers show that the people in the north of one province are for the issue while the people in the south of the province are against the issue, the government can act accordingly to meet those needs as best as they can.

This kind of system eliminates competition between politicians and forces the Canadian people to take accountability and responsibility for the affairs of the entire nation. It allows for an honest and unhindered development of a national community based on the real values that people feel and share amongst each other.

I know this is an incredibly rough idea for what, in reality, is an incredibly complicated structure, but it is a start. I believe Canada is the ideal place for such a type of democracy to evolve, it is already a country of great understanding and acceptance, incredible freedom and capability, not to mention one of the most peaceful and harmonious places to live. It can only get better, and I think that this kind of democratic system could be the one to deliver us to that kind of quality.

I would greatly appreciate any thoughts on the subject, whether critisisms, adaptations, or simple information. Anything you have to offer is of great value to me.

Thanks,

Greyem

[BHS]

Geyem:

Try breaking up your posts a little. I found both of your posts too long, and you wandered off topic too often so that it was difficult to pick out what points you were trying to make. And keep in mind, this advice comes from a bloviating, verbose crank who often has no point to make at all.

Here are some questions:

1) Do you know how long it would take to parse through 30 million opinions about any one issue, let alone all of the issues the federal government has to consider? I don't think that non-representational government is practical outside of a small community setting. You suggest that it would be more efficient to bypass the representatives in favour of direct democracy, but I'm telling you, using thirty million opinions (even filtered by a supercomputer) to run a country is anything but efficient. It would be hell's committee meeting.

2) If decisions are to be made by the voters, what do we need politicians for? You suggest they "educate" the public, but as often as not politicians don't know any more about an issue than the public does. They aren't hired for their knowledge or expertise - they're hired because they smile when a camera is pointed at them and they're willing to eat crappy Legion basement fundraiser cuisine 300 days a year. It's the ideas they represent that are important, and they didn't come up with those ideas by themselves. There's a long, trial-balloon-intensive method to developing a winning political platform and getting it implemented, from the local riding's nominations right up to the media scrum outside of the Parliament buildings, to Question Period, through the House and Senate and on to Rideau Hall. It's long and complicated and often doesn't work the way you want it to, but in the end it does work.

[August1991]

What it comes down to is that people choose a structure of values, political platforms, and the citizens are forced to choose between these limited structures of value.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a very good post. (Incidentally, we usually create such threads in the moral/religious category.)

I will take your quote above and note that elsewhere in your post, you seem to ask why we can't just all get along. Why do politicians get involved in silly competitive fights?

Well, Greyem, how does a group of people take collective decisions? Before you answer, I suggest you look around yourself and wonder, for example, how we decide how to produce bread and butter. These are collective decisions that we as a group must decide. And yet, there seems little acrimony or argument about bread and butter. Why?

Your sentence above, which I quoted, provides an answer.

Good post.

[Greyem]

Geyem:

Try breaking up your posts a little. I found both of your posts too long, and you wandered off topic too often so that it was difficult to pick out what points you were trying to make. And keep in mind, this advice comes from a bloviating, verbose crank who often has no point to make at all.

Here are some questions:

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thank you BHS for your input. I'm sorry if my post was hard to read, it was a quick draft of what, to me, is a complicated idea, and I wanted to get it all out in one (or two) blows so that it wouldn't be broken up into many parts that would seem like different subjects all on their own. I wanted to maintain some continuity from beginning to end, but I was in such a hurry I can see that it was hard to read. Thanks for reading it anyway, I really appreciate it!

As for your questions...

I agree that the practicality of voting on every single issue could be complicated. Not only would we have to deal with counting a huge number of votes, if the system worked, but I believe that at first if this system were to change, we would have to deal with a huge number of Canadians who simply weren't willing to participate so often. Both of these issues I would have to think about. I think a system could be put in place to easily allow all Canadian citizens an easy and automated method of voting by necessity of their citizenship, or some sort of voting-card that is unique to every Canadian citizen and minimizes or diallows the possibility of fraud of altering the outcome of votes. Also if this system were wide-spread and efficient then Canadians might be able to vote, not on a single day, but throughout a week or a month or so, and the results could be seen as they arrive. This is very idealistic, it would obviously be very expensive to put a system like that in place, and I don't know that anyone would be very excited for the method if they don't already deeply believe in a new form of politics, but it is one idea of how these problems could be overcome.

As for your second question, I agree that right now politicians are often seen as simple figureheads without much direction. Other times they are often seen as self-serving and not so concerned with the people's concerns. I agree that my idea for a different system would not change this problem right away. Many politicians I think would find themselves unable to change their point of view in order to educate the people instead of trying to get their votes. They are two very different ways of trying to govern. However, I think my ideal system would encourage a change in attitude towards the political system, which would eventually lead to a more mature population of both politicians and citizens. Do you want politicians always to be the ones who are hired for their smile and their ability to take and deliver verbal punches on television? Something about that doesn't feel right to me.

[Greyem]

What it comes down to is that people choose a structure of values, political platforms, and the citizens are forced to choose between these limited structures of value.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a very good post. (Incidentally, we usually create such threads in the moral/religious category.)

I will take your quote above and note that elsewhere in your post, you seem to ask why we can't just all get along. Why do politicians get involved in silly competitive fights?

Well, Greyem, how does a group of people take collective decisions? Before you answer, I suggest you look around yourself and wonder, for example, how we decide how to produce bread and butter. These are collective decisions that we as a group must decide. And yet, there seems little acrimony or argument about bread and butter. Why?

Your sentence above, which I quoted, provides an answer.

Good post.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thanks for your input and encouraging words. That question really made me think. Trying to answer it would get me into a long thing about philosophy and the nature of humanity, and if tackling politics on a political forum brings that up I would fear for the life of this thread! But it brings me to a crucial point in my own philosophy on politics that I left out of my first two posts. My posts were about changing a system that does not work, and to put it rather harshly, is corrupt. I don't like that word, but it will have to do.

You can't take one corrupt system, replace it with another system, and expect the people who made the first system corrupt to not do the same to another. If my idea for a different form of government were somehow implemented overnight, and we all woke up tomorrow under a completely different kind of democracy, it might as well be anarchy. People are very conditioned to this kind of government, whether that means they are cynical about politics, determined to change it, excited and confident about politics, or merely indifferent. The system I proposed does not stand on it's own, no system does. But it stands, in my mind, as a step towards changing the Canadian, and eventually global attitude. The problem I see in politics is a disconnection between those who govern and those who allow them to govern. Everyone I talk to about politics has something to sigh or to cringe about, something that they just aren't quite satisfied with, something they think should change, but they just don't feel empowered to do so. The system I proposed would take a step towards empowering the citizens to feel as if they ARE the government, and empowering the government to feel as if they ARE the citizens. That is a kind of attitude I feel we really need, an attitude of community, trust, and sharing.

However, that being said, and having aknowledged that a simple change of system does not change the person... We change our personal routines at least minutely every day, but that does not change us, does it? So how do we go about changing that attitude? That is an even harder question for me to answer than "How do we implement a perfect system of government?" because really the latter is just a different way of posing the former.

Making people feel good about life, empowered about change, and loving towards other people of the nation and of the planet, is tricky business. However, I believe it is something we must move towards.

Any suggestions?

P.S. if this thread would be more suitable in the morals/religion topic feel free to move it, maybe people would be more interested in discussing these things there.

[BHS]

Thank you BHS for your input. I'm sorry if my post was hard to read, it was a quick draft of what, to me, is a complicated idea, and I wanted to get it all out in one (or two) blows so that it wouldn't be broken up into many parts that would seem like different subjects all on their own. I wanted to maintain some continuity from beginning to end, but I was in such a hurry I can see that it was hard to read. Thanks for reading it anyway, I really appreciate it!

As for your questions...

I agree that the practicality of voting on every single issue could be complicated. Not only would we have to deal with counting a huge number of votes, if the system worked, but I believe that at first if this system were to change, we would have to deal with a huge number of Canadians who simply weren't willing to participate so often. Both of these issues I would have to think about. I think a system could be put in place to easily allow all Canadian citizens an easy and automated method of voting by necessity of their citizenship, or some sort of voting-card that is unique to every Canadian citizen and minimizes or diallows the possibility of fraud of altering the outcome of votes. Also if this system were wide-spread and efficient then Canadians might be able to vote, not on a single day, but throughout a week or a month or so, and the results could be seen as they arrive. This is very idealistic, it would obviously be very expensive to put a system like that in place, and I don't know that anyone would be very excited for the method if they don't already deeply believe in a new form of politics, but it is one idea of how these problems could be overcome.

As for your second question, I agree that right now politicians are often seen as simple figureheads without much direction. Other times they are often seen as self-serving and not so concerned with the people's concerns. I agree that my idea for a different system would not change this problem right away. Many politicians I think would find themselves unable to change their point of view in order to educate the people instead of trying to get their votes. They are two very different ways of trying to govern. However, I think my ideal system would encourage a change in attitude towards the political system, which would eventually lead to a more mature population of both politicians and citizens. Do you want politicians always to be the ones who are hired for their smile and their ability to take and deliver verbal punches on television? Something about that doesn't feel right to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, but your post reminds me of John Cleese' character Anne Elk on the Flying Circus, who came up with a totally new theory about brontosauruses. Anyone who's familiar with Monty Python will know the sketch.

Direct democracy isn't a new idea - it actually predates the more modern representational democracy we live under. The concept of the plebiscite dates back to Roman times. What makes the idea new again is the idea of using computer networking to co-ordinate regular (say, weekly) votes cast by millions of people. But your not the first person to come up with that innovation either.

Another drawback of direct democracy: it lacks consistency. Even after a proposal has been adopted by Parliament, it takes time for laws and regulations to take effect. A solid party platform provides the consistency needed to give new laws a chance to work, and acts to ensure that new laws that get passes all fit together without overriding each other. Under direct democracy the discipline of a party platform doesn't exist, and the result is a mish-mash of conflicting laws, that in any case won't be given time to attack a problem before the fickle electorate vote in some new measure, that also won't be given a chance to work, and so on.

Perhaps I was a little hard on elected officials in my previous post. They aren't founts of wisdom, but they do have the final say in how they vote on any given issue, and their access to the media allows them to push ideas into the public forum that might otherwise get buried. And they have to be consistent (well, they're supposed to be), as a part of being loyal to their party's platform.

[Greyem]

Sorry, but your post reminds me of John Cleese' character Anne Elk on the Flying Circus, who came up with a totally new theory about brontosauruses. Anyone who's familiar with Monty Python will know the sketch.

Direct democracy isn't a new idea - it actually predates the more modern representational democracy we live under. The concept of the plebiscite dates back to Roman times. What makes the idea new again is the idea of using computer networking to co-ordinate regular (say, weekly) votes cast by millions of people. But your not the first person to come up with that innovation either.

Another drawback of direct democracy: it lacks consistency. Even after a proposal has been adopted by Parliament, it takes time for laws and regulations to take effect. A solid party platform provides the consistency needed to give new laws a chance to work, and acts to ensure that new laws that get passes all fit together without overriding each other. Under direct democracy the discipline of a party platform doesn't exist, and the result is a mish-mash of conflicting laws, that in any case won't be given time to attack a problem before the fickle electorate vote in some new measure, that also won't be given a chance to work, and so on.

Perhaps I was a little hard on elected officials in my previous post. They aren't founts of wisdom, but they do have the final say in how they vote on any given  issue, and their access to the media allows them to push ideas into the public forum that might otherwise get buried. And they have to be consistent (well, they're supposed to be), as a part of being loyal to their party's platform.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It doesn't need to be a new idea, I only call it new because it is new to me. I have never heard of it before being considered or suggested for Canadian politics. Really, it's just my intuitive reaction to the world of politics, and I thought that if I shared that ideal then maybe others would share their own, maybe people would be able to come to a general consensus as to how government is, or should be run.

About those problems you mentioned with direct democracy, as I said in my last post in reply to August1991, you're right that the system I propose would bring up a lot of problems, and would most likely crash very early on if it was rushed into enactment. However I think that if direct democracy were brought into use, it would give citizens so much responsbility that after not knowing how to use it properly and making a lot of mistakes with that kind of power, the citizens would eventually learn from their mistakes in order to make a more sensible form of government. The thing I didn't put into account is that this happens all the time, people always learn, however slowly or quickly, from their mistakes (I believe.) So it doesn't really matter what system we have, as long as the people are apathetic towards some issues, the politicians will be apathetic towards some people. As long as government is merely representational to what it thinks the citizen wants to hear, the citizen will not properly give the government it's honest voice. These problems of disconnectedness between common Canadians will continue until the individuals who are a part of it (Meaning everyone) begin to change that common problem. While I do think that the direct democracy system I proposed might encourage this kind of change more quickly, I don't think that Canadians, or anyone, are ready for a "quick fix" or any kind of fast change for such a large facet of their life. I think that by nature people like to make big changes slowly, in order to soak in every bit of the information they're receiving, and work towards a more perfect solution with all the education they need.

The question now is, how do we bridge the gap between politicians and citizens, regardless of the system in place? How do we create a feeling of community and trust between people of a nation, regardless of status or power? That one, for me, is a very tough question.

Greyem

[kimmy]

I'm not opposed to the idea of plebicites on some issues (although, I can't at the moment think of an issue where I think a plebicite would be the best way of resolving it.) But using direct democracy as a means of running a large and modern country (or even a province, city, or really anything larger than Dog River, Saskatchewan) would be unwieldy and impractical.

I think most of the work done in running a country does not actually consist of big showy policy announcements or voting on controversial issues. I think that most of the work is done by ordinary people working at desks using spreadsheets and word processors and telephones, trying to figure out how to get the most widgets for their department without blowing the budget. For the most part I am willing to trust that guy and I suspect that he's very sincere in his efforts to maximize widget procurement efficiency. He's probably very good at it. I don't think he needs all Canadians looking over his shoulder to tell him how to do his job. He probably knows a hell of a lot more about purchasing widgets than the rest of us ever will.

So at this point I borrow the idea of "specialization" from economics. Once upon a time, specialization was probably pretty simple: men kill animals and cook them on fires, women gather edible plant stuff and care for the children. The sphere of human activity has expanded by orders of magnitude since then, to the point that nobody can possibly fill all the roles on their own. No one has the time to look after all the things that we use to facilitate our quality of life. Did you weave your clothes? Did you grow the grains that were in your breakfast cereal, milk the cow, build your house, dig an oil-well, refine gasoline, build a car, drive to Columbia to obtain coffee beans, forge metal pots, make your own dishes in a kiln you built yourself? Did you build your computer from base metals and sand? Write your own operating system? Of course not. The idea of specialization is what enables us to lead the lives that we do. If we didn't specialize our activities and divide our efforts through some means of commerce, we would be all living a subsistence lifestyle.

I believe the same idea relates to government. If the only decisions we had to make as a tribe were trying to decide which cave to live in and what kind of animal we were going to kill for supper, direct democracy would be very feasible. But things get more complicated pretty quickly... if our tribe is trying to decide which plants are poisonous, should we put that to a popular vote, or should we ask the witch-doctor? See, we're still living in caves, and we've already got issues that require specialized knowledge to make correct decisions.

And governing our tribe, all 32 million of us, is so much more complicated than that.

So we have specialists-- tens of thousands of them-- clustered in their caves in Ottawa and Hull and trying to use their specialized knowledge for the good of the tribe. And we trust them to do a good job. But we want input and accountability. So we appoint chieftans to oversee them, and we interact with these chieftans. We have a Medicine Chieftain, a War Chieftain, a Law Chieftain, a chieftain who oversees the process of dividing up the burnt animal flesh and edible plant stuff, and so on. And each chieftain might not know much about medicine or war or law, but these chieftains are there to represent us to the specialists who look after each of these fields of endeavor. If we as a tribe are unhappy with the way medicine is being administered, we don't complain to individual witch-doctors, we complain to the medicine chieftain who tries to set things right. If the tribe continues to be unhappy with the medicine chieftain, then it could be the medicine chieftain's head on a stake as a warning to other chieftains who disappoint the tribe.

I think this is the best way to do things. With so much specialized knowledge at work and so many decisions to be made, we just can't possibly know enough about each issue to make informed decisions-- we have our own specializations to worry about. Choosing representitives to interact on our behalf with these specialists and to take accountability for their activities saves us all a lot of effort and energy.

However, that still leaves lots of room to wonder whether our system could be improved. How often should we review our chieftains and assess their records? If a chieftain is screwing up, should we have the power to stake his head at our wish, or must it wait for a review period? Does dividing prospective chieftains into adversarial parties serve any purpose? Need all the chieftains be from the same party? What if we could elect chieftains for specific tasks, could that be better than having the party leader appoint chieftains to specific tasks and reappoint them on his whim?

-k

[Greyem]

That's a lot of interesting stuff you wrote kimmy. It is certainly more complicated than I outlined, as has been discussed briefly. And it's true that we can't all specialize in politics the way we might be able to as a small tribe, but I don't think it's just about specialization. To lend on your analogy to tribal life, as the tribe evolves into more complicated matters of society, it's not merely the specialization of specific issues by specific people, but the community that is maintained even though the people separate themselves by their ways of living. For example, although the man you described goes out and kills the animal the tribe has shown public favor for, and then builds fire and cooks the animal, while the woman specializes in gathering smaller foodstuffs and tending to the grounds, the sick, the young, etc. These two people have different specializations in their daily lives, but they share with each other all that they know about life, all that they do with that knowledge and their life, and pass on the rewards of this knowledge and action.

Likewise, I think that kind of community is necessary, even in such a large tribe as Canada. While the people may not have time to become specialists in cars, oil manufacteuring, the environment, the economy, the law, the army, and politics, to name but a few of an infinite number of growing fields of study, I don't think it is too much to ask that every Canadian be educated on all these issues to at least be able to make informed and empowered decisions when they vote. This doesn't require them to specialize in any one field, but to study life in all it's relative facets. Personally, I do this by choice, regardless of my country's political system. I wouldn't feel right in my humanity if I denied myself the opportunity to study every facet of my existence, and see how it all relates. This, I feel, makes me a more educated and empowered member of society.

Anyway, while we will always need specialists to educate and further the growth of the people and the nation, I believe we'll also always need an honest and unconditionally open forum of shared information between all Canadians to really move together as a single nation under the one name of Canada.

[Chronic]

As I hope you all know a Federal Election is coming up on Jan 23.

There is one more Leaders Debate scheduled on Monday.

There is a petition collecting signatures to stop the TV executives from being the ones who decide who is allowed in the debates. Right now for a party to be recognized as an official federal party, they must get at least 2% of the popular vote. Once this happens they recieve funding from taxes and are regarded as an offical party.

At this point in time they should be being included in all Federal Political Events. That isnt the way it works though when it comes to the televised debates. Regardless of the criteria already set out for federal parties, the television executives arbritarily decide who can be invloved. Which means that they are subverting the federal election process if they follow any guidelines except the established governmental regulations.

For a brief refresher (or maybe new knowledge) there are 308 ridings across canada. In the last election only four parties ran a candidate in every riding. To me this is important, because if you wish to be a federal party that represents the whole country, shouldn't you have represenatives across the whole country? The four parties were; the Liberals, Conservatives, N.D.P. and The Green Party.

The following link is to a petetion at the Green Parties website. This has nothing to do with any poll or survey, and it is not about supporting the Green Party. It is about allowing the democratic principles that our country is about to work as they were meant to.

Nowhere does it say that televion executives should have the power to decide who has access to the leaders debates.

By monday's scheduled debate, we need to collect another 10,000 canadian signatures.

Just ask yourself this, wouldnt you at least like to see the leader of the Green Party have a chance to say his peace, especially considering a couple of million tax dollars went to them since the last election?

Here's the link

http://www.info-greenparty.ca/petition/

Let's let the democratic process work without hinderance from the television executives.

Tom Adshead