A Model for Electronic Democracy?

This is my view of how an electronic democracy should work. Just so you know where I'm getting the wacky ideas that follow, let me explain how I got started on this.

My wife and I got into an interesting discussion about term limits for US Senators and Representatives. We both were rather confused as to what term limits would actually accomplish. Term limits seem to be based on the premise that:

• Congress is overrun with career politicians
• Career politicians are bad:
  • Career politicians spend so long in congress that they lose touch with their constituants and with the "real world"
  • Long-time incumbant politicians gain an inordinate amount of power over freshman, thus eliminating true democracy.
• Term limits will eliminate career politicians

Proponents of term limits claim that term limits will restore congress to a state of "citizen government", where the congress is made up of the people.

In pondering whether or not this is true, it led me to contemplate the problem as I perceived it:

• Congress no longer truly represents the will of people.

Those who would argue for term limits would probably not argue with this point (otherwise, why change the system?). Yet would limiting terms eliminate the "old boys network", or just put a facade on it? If term limits aren't the answer to the problem, what is? If I am indeed correct in identifying the problem, then we need to ask the following:

• How do we make congress represent the people?
• What system of government would represent the people?
• Does our current system need some minor tweaks or a major overhaul? Does it need replacement?

When the Constitution was originally framed, there were several reasons why a direct democracy was not deemed feasable:

1. Elections were very expensive and time consuming
2. Keeping an electorate well informed on all issues was impossible
3. The electorate wasn't interested in voting on every issue that needed to be addressed

All of these are largely true today. However, contrary to 200 years ago, I believe all of these problems are surmountable through creating a hybrid of representitive democracy and direct democracy.

The first point is the easiest to address. It's true that elections are very expensive and time consuming, as they are currently conducted. However, it won't be long before electronic voting will become a feasible means of gathering popular opinion on an issue. This one is a simple matter of programming :) (OK, I know I'm handwaving, but bear with me).

The second point is harder. However, the latest round of net porno legislation shows that the legislature isn't necessarily any more informed than the public is, and it also shows the legislature is largely driven by the whim of the masses anyway. Most people have given up on the idea of the "benevolent politician", who makes decisions for the greater good, in spite of what the polls say. On the rare occasion this does happen, the politician won't be recognized for it until well after they are dead.

The third point is what still breaks the back of any effort to go to a complete direct democracy. Sure, it's possible to whip certain groups into a frenzy on some issues (witness ESSB5466). However, to get an informed electorate to vote on all issues that need to be addressed would be impossible.

The Solution: Public Ballot Stewardship

How do you create direct democracy which doesn't require everyone to vote on everything? You create a more efficient representive democracy. What I'm proposing here is a "peoples' congress", that would serve as another link in the path for a bill to make it to law. Here's how it works:

• Everyone who is eligible to vote gets one vote on every issue
• There would be two types of elections, general elections and public elections
  
• General elections are what we now know as general elections. Private ballot, one person/one vote, you snooze you lose. Nothing fundemenatally different here from what we now call voting. These would be used on special issues like constitutional amendments, presidential elections, and other "big-ticket" items.
• Public elections are public ballot votes. Everyone knows which way everyone else voted, by name. They would be a matter of public record. These elections would be for the more "mundane" things, like budgets, minor bills, declaration of "National Boy Scouts Week", etc. You many may do one of two things with your vote:
  • You may represent yourself This would involve staying on top of debates on every issue that passes through this new "congress" and voting as necessary. This would be a pretty hard thing to do, and most people would probably not want to do it (although there would probably be many a stubborn individual who would take this course).
  • You choose a steward to vote for you This person would vote on your behalf. You would select a steward in the same way you select a congressperson. The critical difference is that you can select anyone willing to be a steward of your vote. It could be the traditional congressperson type, it could be your hairstylist, it could be your priest, it could be your spouse, it could be Rush Limbaugh, it could be Jesse Jackson. It could be anyone you feel would represent you.

An important aspect of this would be that you could change your steward at any time, for any reason. You could change daily, as you decide one day you're a democrat, the next day: you're a republican. Hell, you could be a libratarian, a "Perotian", a gun-toten' loonie, or a tree-huggin' vegatarian. You choose whoever represents you, and to hell with what everyone else in your district thinks, you are represented.

Another important exception that could be made is the power to override your steward on a vote. If you feel strongly about a particular issue, you can temporarily cede your vote from your steward for that one issue.

The public ballot would be important in public elections, because that's how people can make informed decisions about who they choose as their steward.

Hopefully, what would form is a truly dynamic and representative body who truly represented what America thinks of issues. Maybe, instead of one "body", there could be several congresses, each with assigned powers of their own. One congress dedicated to the interior, one to defense, one to education. People could pick individual stewards for each, or choose one to handle all. Perhaps this would be done on an individual basis, where the steward has trusted advisors that actually choose the vote in their given specialty.

Implementation

The complexities of this type of a system are mind boggling, but with technology shaping up the way it has been, it might not be impossible to implement soon. The main problem facing electronic voting on the Internet is verifying that one person gets one vote, and that all people are represented (even those without Internet access). Verification of identity is a problem that plagues many applications on the Internet (such as making purchases on the net, or filing taxes on the net), and so this one will likely be solved regardless of whether electronic voting makes it an issue. Universal access is also a problem that is currently being worked on outside of this issue.

Then there is the question of fitting it into the current political system. Do you replace the house, do you replace the senate, do you add a third "hoop" to the bill-making process, or do you do something completely different? Given the choice between house and senate, it seems logical to me to replace the house, which was designed to most closely represent the will of the people through small terms, whereas the senate has longer terms to guard against public impetuousness.

Addendum

What do people think of this system? Is this totally whacked, or do you think this would eventually be feasible? Besides corporations, are there trade unions or other organizations that use this paradigm? I'd be interested in some discussion about this. I'll incorporate points brought up by other folks in this article.

Related Stuff