Virtual Elections & Government

wfom01

Boards.ie is just what I've hoped for as regards a website that allows voters to vote virtually. This could be extended to facilitate all citizens (that care to) voting on every issue before the Oireachtas. I'm quite sure TDs will take serious note of citizens view expressed in this way, esp. if vote counting is done by constituency - I cannot see any elected TD going against his electorate for very long. Maybe the website will highlight issues where the electorate voted against the TD. It wouldn't be too long before TDs wishing to retain their seat (ie all of them) would start voting the same as the electorate!
We the people could then propose motions (publish Bills) on any issue we like and ask for seconders and votes ie without waiting for politicians making such proposals. That too would influence them to make these proposals themselves or risk being ignored on the next election. Eventually, this virtual electoral system might replace the current "representative democracy" with a true democracy?

oscarBravo

I completely (and respectfully) disagree. The boards.ie poll is an interesting social experiment, and one which I've been watching closely. It was a very worthwhile exercise.

Our electoral system depends for its effectiveness on the public secret ballot. Votes are cast in public, because that offers safeguards against personation, ballot stuffing, intimidation and vote buying, and so on. The ballot is secret, also to guard against intimidation and vote buying.

An electoral system that doesn't offer these guarantees is fatally flawed.

That aside, I'm unconvinced of the merits of politicians being forced to follow the whim of current opinion. The point of representative democracy is to elect someone to represent you, then let them get on with the job of doing so.

wfom01

@oscarBravo - "Our electoral system depends for its effectiveness on the public secret ballot" - can you explain why? Personally, I abhor secrecy and believe that anyone unwilling to speak his/her mind in public does not deserve to be heard.
You suggest people might be subject to "intimidation and vote buying" - I contend that happens at present. A pint or two is often all it takes. If voting were in public the easily intimidated and easily bought would at least be exposed

I'm surprised you oppose "politicians being forced to follow the whim of current opinion" - "Whim" is a pejorative term; why not say "wishes"? Surely political representatives should do just that, represent the majority opinion.

"The point of representative democracy is to elect someone to represent you, then let them get on with the job of doing so" - I could not disagree more! What we have is false promises in the 3 weeks before elections followed by 5 years of "Do as we please to suit ourselves and enrich our already rich friends so that they will continue to support us financially". This is iniquitous, surely?

oscarBravo

wfom01 wrote: »

@oscarBravo - "Our electoral system depends for its effectiveness on the public secret ballot" - can you explain why? Personally, I abhor secrecy and believe that anyone unwilling to speak his/her mind in public does not deserve to be heard.

The scenarios are many. Let's say, for the sake of argument that a political party wants to increase its representation, and doesn't have many scruples. It "sends the boys around" to elderly people living alone, or drops hints to parents that it knows where their kids go to school. In a different vein, a strong patriarch (or matriarch) in a family demands that the entire family vote for a given candidate. As the ballot isn't secret, reprisal against people who vote the "wrong" way is easy.

Similarly, the reason for casting a private ballot in public is to ensure secrecy. A private ballot that's filled in at home and posted in is subject to the same issues.

You suggest people might be subject to "intimidation and vote buying" - I contend that happens at present. A pint or two is often all it takes. If voting were in public the easily intimidated and easily bought would at least be exposed

How? At the moment, someone can buy me a couple of pints down the pub, or offer me a hundred quid, or threaten to break my legs. It doesn't matter: in a secret ballot, he can't know how I voted and the opportunity for reprisal doesn't exist.

You'll have to explain how a public ballot will address these problems, because I'm not seeing it.

I'm surprised you oppose "politicians being forced to follow the whim of current opinion" - "Whim" is a pejorative term; why not say "wishes"? Surely political representatives should do just that, represent the majority opinion.

Sure, if you subscribe to the view that the majority opinion is infallibly correct, and that a large group of angry people is incapable of demanding an action that, while viscerally satisfying in the short term, is unspeakably stupid and self-destructive in the longer term.

I don't have that sort of faith in mobs, and if you do, you'll again have to explain why.

I'm not a slavish believer in democracy. I think people are capable of extremely self-destructive behaviour, especially in large groups and especially when acting on the spur of the moment. I see representative democracy as one way of tempering the problems inherent in letting people rule themselves.

"The point of representative democracy is to elect someone to represent you, then let them get on with the job of doing so" - I could not disagree more!

Then, with respect, you misunderstand what representative democracy is. If you disagree with representative democracy and believe that direct democracy is invariably better, that's a different argument.

What we have is false promises in the 3 weeks before elections followed by 5 years of "Do as we please to suit ourselves and enrich our already rich friends so that they will continue to support us financially". This is iniquitous, surely?

It's a reflection of the stupidity of an electorate that continues to re-elect people who break promises. If they can't be trusted to make that decision once every five years, what makes you so sure they can be trusted with a decision every week?

wfom01

oscarBravo wrote: »

The scenarios are many. Let's say, for the sake of argument that a political party wants to increase its representation, and doesn't have many scruples. It "sends the boys around" to elderly people living alone, or drops hints to parents that it knows where their kids go to school. In a different vein, a strong patriarch (or matriarch) in a family demands that the entire family vote for a given candidate. As the ballot isn't secret, reprisal against people who vote the "wrong" way is easy.

I think you're forgetting that votes can be secret in a web-based arrangement just the same as in the current arrangement. So no real issue there.

So you feel the TD ignoring the wishes of those who elected him/her is OK do you, on the basis that they are too stupid or too angry to vote 'correctly'. How exactly do you define 'correct' if not in accordance with the people's wishes? I'm afraid you have a very poor regard for Joe Soap and an unwise regard for the average TD, in my opinion of course.

Yes I can see you're not a (slavish) believer in democracy - why is it slavish to believe in the most highly regarded form of government anyway?. While I agree a few people are capable of self-destructive behavior I believe most are responsible (or don't care and so wouldn't bother). How can you describe citizens in their own homes as "large groups" and, worse still as a "mob" and as regards "acting on the spur of the moment" it would be a simple matter to require voters to first read the proposal in detail (by needing to answer a few questions first) before voting. You don't seem to be aware that when "people rule themselves" they have developed idyllic societies.
"(I) misunderstand what representative democracy"... is - ????. "If (I) disagree with representative democracy and believe that direct democracy is invariably better, that's a different argument" - THAT IS MY ARGUMENT!

..."stupidity of an electorate ...re-elect(S) people who break promises" - ON THAT WE CAN AGREE. If they can't be trusted to make that decision once every five years, what makes you so sure they can be trusted with a decision every week? ...I suspect they will be overcome with embarrassment (early on) and will conform to the will of the people as time goes by.

I hope you're not running yourself are you? I sincerely hope you're not running in my constituency! I distrust people who "know what's good for me"!

oscarBravo

wfom01 wrote: »

I think you're forgetting that votes can be secret in a web-based arrangement just the same as in the current arrangement. So no real issue there.

I'm not forgetting it at all. Sure, there's the possibility of secrecy with a web-based ballot, but there's equally the possibility of that secrecy not being there. If it's possible to vote from the comfort of my home, then the strict patriarch/hired goon/whoever can sit beside me while I vote and make sure I vote "correctly". With a public secret ballot, that's not possible.

That's an important safeguard. It's easy to dismiss it as unimportant when you have had the privilege of growing up in a democracy which has been shaped in large part by the protection of a public secret ballot, but believe me: it's important.

So you feel the TD ignoring the wishes of those who elected him/her is OK do you, on the basis that they are too stupid or too angry to vote 'correctly'. How exactly do you define 'correct' if not in accordance with the people's wishes? I'm afraid you have a very poor regard for Joe Soap and an unwise regard for the average TD, in my opinion of course.

In a representative democracy, you entrust the people you elect with the judgement to make the right calls and represent the wishes of the electorate as they see fit. As a voter, you have the ultimate weapon to use against representatives who fail to represent you: you can refuse to re-elect them. The fact that we so frequently fail to do so reflects worse on the electorate than on the representatives.

But again, this is becoming a discussion on the relative merits of direct versus representative democracy, and I think it's a badly-framed discussion on that topic. Your idea of direct democracy seems to be that you elect people to represent you, and then instruct them on every single issue, thereby relieving them of the burden of doing anything other than voting in accordance with the most recently-expressed wishes of the electorate. In which case, just cut out the middle man and have everyone vote on everything.

Of course, in order to do so, you need to make it easy for people to vote. Your answer is to compromise the integrity of the ballot. I accept that you don't believe that that is your position, but - again, with respect - that's because you haven't thought the issue through.

Yes I can see you're not a (slavish) believer in democracy - why is it slavish to believe in the most highly regarded form of government anyway?.

I'm far from convinced that direct democracy is the most highly-regarded form of government. I'm pretty sure that honour, by and large, belongs to representative democracy.

While I agree a few people are capable of self-destructive behavior I believe most are responsible (or don't care and so wouldn't bother).

I'm not talking about self-destructive behaviour, I'm talking about ignorance, naivety, short-term thinking and poor decision-making skills. If you don't believe that people demonstrate those characteristics in their daily lives, you can't have lived as long as I have.

How can you describe citizens in their own homes as "large groups" and, worse still as a "mob" and as regards "acting on the spur of the moment" it would be a simple matter to require voters to first read the proposal in detail (by needing to answer a few questions first) before voting.

You're falling into the trap of believing your own propaganda. You're proposing a system, imagining the best-case scenario, and assuming that that's the only possible outcome. The fact that you don't seem to have considered the possibility of bribery or coercion in the context of web-based voting demonstrates clearly that you simply haven't thought through the implications of your proposal.

You don't seem to be aware that when "people rule themselves" they have developed idyllic societies.

Examples?

"(I) misunderstand what representative democracy"... is - ????. "If (I) disagree with representative democracy and believe that direct democracy is invariably better, that's a different argument" - THAT IS MY ARGUMENT!

Fair enough, but it's not what you were arguing.

..."stupidity of an electorate ...re-elect(S) people who break promises" - ON THAT WE CAN AGREE. If they can't be trusted to make that decision once every five years, what makes you so sure they can be trusted with a decision every week? ...I suspect they will be overcome with embarrassment (early on) and will conform to the will of the people as time goes by.

You can suspect that all you want, but a cursory look at the cast of embarrassing characters in Dáil Éireann doesn't go a long way to convincing me that the electorate is good at learning from its mistakes.

I hope you're not running yourself are you?

Hell, no.

I sincerely hope you're not running in my constituency! I distrust people who "know what's good for me"!

Unless, of course, a couple of thousand people decide what's good for you. Then they're infallible.