|
Electoral Democracy in a Constitutional Republic
700 words
The United States, like nations throughout the West, is in grave danger from implosion. There has been neglect to sustain, rejuvenate and add to the defining checks & balances, which have now, consequently, been subverted and abandoned.
The main problem is political parties. These must be weakened and, I contend, ultimately placed beyond the pale.
The second problem is to understand electoral democracy differently, as it should be in a Constitutional Republic; i.e. not as dictatorship by a numerical majority. Voting is an additional check & balance. It must not rule the roost alone.
Until recently, political parties were essential because they were the only way of aggregating opinions and therefore votes. The choice had to be scaled down to just a few names on a ballot paper, with winner takes all.
That was in the twentieth century. Meanwhile nigh everyone know how to handle a screen and a search machine.
The political parties pre-select shortlists for candidates. There is now, as never before, another way of doing pre-section.
* Require all candidates to obtain for election a specific number of votes. (This can be determined by the size of the electorate, traditional turnout and the target number of seats.)
* Do not be alarmed by the next proposal. It integrates safeguards, ensuring audit & transparency. As a paper trail, there would be a printout of each vote cast, to be folded and placed anonymously in the urn. The counting is done electronically, but, if doubts arise, there would be paper ballots to count and speak the last word.
* Install electronic voting at polling stations. The voter is provided on a first screen with the choice of constituency candidates they would currently see on the paper ballot. Voters discontent with this selection would have the option of moving to a second screen which would show all candidates in a larger area, say their county, a federal state or, for President, the nation as a whole. Or they could just search for, or enter the name, of their preferred candidate.
* There would be a process where candidates falling far short of the threshold would redistribute their contingents of votes to candidates closer to the threshold. Similarly, very popular candidates would redistribute their surplus votes. This way no vote need go wasted while voters would have a much wider choice of candidate and so no longer vote for the least bad option or against a much-feared candidate.
* Anyone would be able to stand for election on payment of a small fee and endorsement by a few hundred citizens. No need for party membership.
This would much diminish the power of parties while still according them an advisory role.
Such a system of “transferable power of political attorney” would make Washington (or wherever) vastly more representative, reward outstanding candidates with the loyalty of supporters outside their narrow constituency while retaining a geographical anchor, and restore trust in electoral democracy.
I have called this procedure “Fuzzy Democracy.” “Fuzzy” because imprecise and imperfect but as close as it gets.
Fuzzy Democracy has a separate, independent, component.
In various jurisdictions (e.g. the UK, Spain) there has been geographical devolution. Fuzzy Democracy rejects this, advocating instead “Thematic Devolution.”
We need to be able to vote separately on the grand issues of politics. We need separate assemblies, elected independently, for:
· Foreign policy and defense
· Infrastructure including the environment
· The design of taxes (including high finance and money/debt creation)
· The design of Justice (courts, prisons…)
· Moral issues
A start could best be made with Moral Issues, which have the advantage of often crossing the lines of party affiliation. By Moral Issues I mean controversies such as those surrounding the beginnings & end of life; the treatment of animals; the use of recreational drugs; gambling; parental rights and duties; and the defense of freedom of speech & reach.
It makes no sense to expect to be able to elect a single individual to represent you on these matters while expecting them to meet your ideals on the oversight of finance, geopolitics, the administration of justice and on the environment. There is no such thing as a Man for All Seasons.
________
I realize of course that such proposals are way outside the “Overton” window, the thinkable. This is not “thinking in the box.” But, when a widely predicted societal collapse comes, there will be openings for such an alternative approach, if initially only at the level of federal states or even counties.
 |
|
|