Referenda for Laws & Constitutional Amendments

[Patroklus Murakami]

One side effect of the recent voting changes for the Representative Assembly is that our elections (when we bother holding them) have been turned into a 'beauty contest'. Voters really have no idea what laws their representatives will vote for or promote because.... candidates rarely say anything about them. Candidates tend to stress their values - integrity, inclusion etc. but not what laws they will support or push for.

Now, in the old days when only factions contested elections, voters had a good idea what they were getting because we used to publish manifestos which said what kind of laws we would pass. Some factions even described all the legislation they thought was needed in great detail.

I don't think we can go back to the old days. People wanted the freedom to elect people regardless of faction label and that's fine. People also wanted STV and I support that (and always have). But we need to bring back the power of the people to choose the laws and constitutional amendments that govern our little society. We already have commissions which bring citizens into the deliberation process before new laws or constitutional amendments are voted on but these are far from perfect. The last RA held a lot of meetings (a *lot* of meetings) but the attendees were mostly the same group of activists. These meetings involved no more than half our citizens when taken together (and some meetings which made big decisions were attended by no more than two or three people). There is no real guarantee that anything these groups develop actually reflects the will of the electorate. Nor is there any guarantee that the RA will be 'representative' when the members are mostly people who got elected in a 'beauty contest' i.e. their friends voted for them. (The 14th RA will be even less representative as no election was held for 6 out of the 7 seats, they are just the folk who showed up).

I think we need to check that people agree with the laws and constitutional amendments the RA passes before they become effective. So I propose that all laws and constitutional amendments passed during the term should be voted on in referenda at the next scheduled general election. Laws would only take effect if they got support from a simple majority of the votes cast (as would any other momentous decisions such as to merge with another community). Constitutional amendments would only take effect if they got support from 2/3 of the votes cast, and more than half the citizens eligible voted for the measure. I think this would help to make sure that our representatives were truly acting in the community's interest. It would force those in favour of new laws etc. to get out and get support from the electorate, not just the people in the Representative Assembly.

I'd be interested in proposing this for the RA to consider. Any thoughts?

[Soro Dagostino]

What an idea!!

We can get rid of the RA and any discourse about the adoption of laws. As I see your proposal, the laws would be in the power of the citizenry who would be invited to throw in the hopper anything and everything. Sort of like California's referendum law. Oh joy! No politicians!

[Patroklus Murakami]

What an idea!!

We can get rid of the RA and any discourse about the adoption of laws. As I see your proposal, the laws would be in the power of the citizenry who would be invited to throw in the hopper anything and everything. Sort of like California's referendum law. Oh joy! No politicians!

Soro

I don't think you have quite understood what I'm proposing, I'm *not* saying we should get rid of the RA. Apologies if that did not come through clearly in my initial post. I think there is a role for the RA in the development of new laws and constitutional amendments. It's a good idea to have a (relatively small) group of people who, following election, scrutinise proposals for legislation, consult with citizens in commissions and then develop and refine the ideas into laws and vote on them. My problem with the current system is that citizens really don't know what they're letting themselves in for when they elect their representatives these days. We don't know if they are 'small government conservatives' or 'tax and spend liberals' because there are no real election platforms to tell you what kind of laws representative will press for.

I'm suggesting that we keep politicians (I assume they still have them in California too?) but that decision-making power should rest with citizens. If citizens approve of the laws the politicians (RA members) develop then all is well and good, the laws get passed. If they don't, the laws fall. That seems like a pretty good definition of democracy to me

Some people have said in the past that we try to ape the structures and complications of a traditional nineteenth century nation-state. I'm suggesting that we innovate with some of the tools available to a twenty-first century virtual community. Referenda are easy to organise in our environment and the tools for mass communication and engagement mean we can have a highly politically literate electorate. Why not allow them to be the final arbiters of our laws?

[Soro Dagostino]

The reality is -- who would want to waste their time devoting personal effort to be the "representative" of the body politic -- when whatever is done is subject to contention and dispute by concentrated groups of political bullies? "RA" has a meaning that is honored in a true representative democracy. Your proposal dishonors those who have been elected.

I suggest your proposal would bring an end to representative government.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Soro

I'm a supporter of representative democracy. I don't think my proposal really conflicts with that. We will still need people to volunteer to work on proposals for legislation, consult with citizens and develop these proposals into legislation. That is the prime function of the RA (along with carrying out long-term planning) and, if we reform the RA in the way I've suggested in other threads, we should not be short of people to serve the community by joining it.

I don't think that anyone is 'dishonoured' if we take the time to check that the legislation they develop is really in tune with the wishes of the electorate. If legislation is passed then the RA did a good job and we can feel sure that it has popular support. If legislation is defeated by referendum this is still a good thing, because it means that laws and constitutional amendments which don't have the support of the electorate cannot pass. Why would we want the RA to pass laws and constitutional amendments that are not supported by the electorate? That does not seem very democratic to me.

The problem I'm trying to solve here is that, since we changed our electoral system, citizens have no way to make informed choices at election time. How could voters for the 13th RA know what legislation their representatives would pass? Unless there's a requirement for candidates to say what legislation they think is needed, and prevention of the passage of laws that don't feature in election platforms, voters don't really know what they are getting. My proposal would give back some power to citizens which has been lost. What could be wrong with that?

[Pip Torok]

One side effect of the recent voting changes for the Representative Assembly is that our elections (when we bother holding them) have been turned into a 'beauty contest'. Voters really have no idea what laws their representatives will vote for or promote because.... candidates rarely say anything about them. Candidates tend to stress their values - integrity, inclusion etc. but not what laws they will support or push for.

Now, in the old days when only factions contested elections, voters had a good idea what they were getting because we used to publish manifestos which said what kind of laws we would pass. Some factions even described all the legislation they thought was needed in great detail.

I don't think we can go back to the old days. People wanted the freedom to elect people regardless of faction label and that's fine. People also wanted STV and I support that (and always have). But we need to bring back the power of the people to choose the laws and constitutional amendments that govern our little society. We already have commissions which bring citizens into the deliberation process before new laws or constitutional amendments are voted on but these are far from perfect. The last RA held a lot of meetings (a *lot* of meetings) but the attendees were mostly the same group of activists. These meetings involved no more than half our citizens when taken together (and some meetings which made big decisions were attended by no more than two or three people). There is no real guarantee that anything these groups develop actually reflects the will of the electorate. Nor is there any guarantee that the RA will be 'representative' when the members are mostly people who got elected in a 'beauty contest' i.e. their friends voted for them. (The 14th RA will be even less representative as no election was held for 6 out of the 7 seats, they are just the folk who showed up).

I think we need to check that people agree with the laws and constitutional amendments the RA passes before they become effective. So I propose that all laws and constitutional amendments passed during the term should be voted on in referenda at the next scheduled general election. Laws would only take effect if they got support from a simple majority of the votes cast (as would any other momentous decisions such as to merge with another community). Constitutional amendments would only take effect if they got support from 2/3 of the votes cast, and more than half the citizens eligible voted for the measure. I think this would help to make sure that our representatives were truly acting in the community's interest. It would force those in favour of new laws etc. to get out and get support from the electorate, not just the people in the Representative Assembly.

I'd be interested in proposing this for the RA to consider. Any thoughts?

Well first, Pat, those sitting here in the RA by virtue of [normally] being voted in, are here representing those voters. It is the whole point of representational democracy.

Secondly, there has never been any barrier for any citizen to propose a law. Sometimes there is a discussion, face to face or maybe in the Forums, as to whether it's a good proposal, whether it's what we need, or whether it's adequately drafted. With six now (and seven RA's shortly), the voter has a ready choice over which one to approach.

So ... "[you] propose that all laws and constitutional amendments passed during the term should be voted on in referenda at the next scheduled general election" ... ?

This would be incredibly cumbersome. From your own experience of real-life Council work, Pat, you must be well aware of this already.

And one other proposal that you made earlier ... that one RA member for every ten citizens amounts to over-representation. I hold to the opposite: that this ratio leaves them under-represented! But that in turn begs a serious question : to what extent are a number of our citizens sleep-walking? How many really care to be active participants in our democratic process?

And, to beg yet a further question, why isn't this question of apathy at the forefront of all our readers' minds?

"The moment we care for anything deeply, the world
-- that is, all the other miscellaneous interests -- becomes
our enemy."

-- GK Chesterton, "Heretics", 1905

Pip Torok