I just wanted to reply, point-by-point, to each issue mentioned.
Sudane Erato wrote:Those people who voted would then have a "set of privileges" different from the rest of the citizenry, such as having the ability to propose legislation to the RA members
Although I agree that we should do more to encourage more voting, I don't believe that the privilege to propose legislation is very democratic. Although the constitution does not provide for any specific provision on the right of citizens to propose legislation to their RA members according to the RA Rules of Procedure (http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=281; 3. Citizen Input), "Any citizen may propose legislation ... (by, essentially, submitting it to the LRA or posting it in a place where the LRA can view it)".Therefore, if that page is official, I am afraid that that would mean that this right of all citizens is inviolable unless altered by legislation or a constitutional amendment.
Sudane Erato wrote:We speak often about our uniqueness as the oldest functioning SL democracy, and about the reason that so many of our parcels are occupied with tier paying citizens. But when it comes time to actually take 5 minutes and participate in that democracy, the turnout is abysmal. Surely we must be able to develop an incentive.
I agree with this, and that is a bit saddening. Though, the "apple doesn't fall far from the tree" and I say this because many people do not vote in RL elections because, typically, their political efficacy is rather poor (meaning that they do not believe that they will make a difference or that their representatives care about what they think/want). Therefore, the only incentives I feel would improve the efficacy or to rally turn-out would be to have economic incentives or make the democracy more reliant on voter turn out by making it a direct democracy or a democracy more reliant on the electorate, which would essentially mean the demise of the current standing constitution. Another idea would be the standing and the prestige of being a regular voter (in this case, I will define them as being "politically elite", as they vote more than the others) by means of solidary incentives (I will define as incentives to one's pleasure or stature amongst a public), so by making a, say, a medal or chivalric order (such as, the Order of the British Empire) of members who are "politically elite" will push more citizens to vote. This way, there would be no violation of any privileges provided in the constitution, but will increase the stature of members of such an order.
But, yes, we definitely must work on the political efficacy of the rest of the citizens and work on, possibly, improving the stature of those who do vote. I am afraid that the CDS is a heavily "elitist" state between those who vote and are politically active and those who don't and are not; it maybe an inherit issue because of several circumstances (say, one's RL efficacy, RL schedule or the Constitution) or it may be an issue which we can alter, by means of material or solidary incentives or other ideas -- all welcome, of course.
Beathan wrote:That said, small turnout, especially in by-elections, is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather have a small, informed turnout than a large, uninformed one. An even greater threat to a democracy would be the random voting of large numbers of people who don't know anything more than the names on the ballot.
I must agree with Beathan, though such a lack of voters is worrying. It may actually be better, not only for us -- as in the politically elite -- and the rest of us -- all of the citizens of the CDS. Perhaps it is the view of those who do note vote that this country has managed in its own right by those who are politically active and, therefore, they trust those who are more politically active with the governing of the country. Though it be an oligarchy (not a plutocracy), essentially, it would then have its basis in democracy, as we enable all to vote but others choose not to partake in the elections or the politics of the country because they trust us -- the political elite -- to run the country. It may also be because they simply don't care how the sim is run and they just want a place to live, which would be another extension of their democratic right to do so.
Sudane Erato wrote:The only things that appear to move voters to act are decisions on issues which directly affect them (in their own minds). But perhaps the prospect of joining the rolls of folks who have voted might be an additional incentive.
This buys in with my idea that we may try to alter the voter turn out but it may be an extension of their democratic will (by them seemingly affirming the rule of the politically elite by not voting, leaving the actual electing to be intra-elite). They may not care about the politics of the country until an issue directly affects them which, to be honest, little will unless if we decide to place waterfalls in all the non-voting citizens' homes and have them pay for the prims I think that would affect them, but it wouldn't exactly do us any good, would it? Second point: that was what I was saying with the membership of the chivalric order or such; such an incentive to join the "rolls of folks" who vote (solidary incentive) would by increased stature by means of a chivalric order or such. I may be over-emphasising this chivalric order idea, but I don't know of many other ideas that increase their stature.
Cindy Ecksol wrote:Ooooh, I'm loving this idea! Isn't it common practice for the government to pay people to vote in a lot of countries? Seems to me there are a few current disputes throughout the world arising from such practices, but, hey, if that's the price for getting turnout, maybe we should consider it...
On the other hand, maybe Sudane's right and it would be too much bookkeeping. We wouldn't want to have disputes over who got paid (or not) or whether some people got paid twice...
It is definitely an idea, yes, because that would be a material incentive, and material incentives tend to attract more people than solidary incentives. And it would be alot of book-keeping, yes, but it may just attract more people to vote; though, this may open up the issue of people voting and not having any prior knowledge, as Beathan said. That could turn into a nasty problem, of people getting elected who have little regard for the actual politics of the country. Perhaps it best to keep our open, free and democratically-affirmed "oligarchy" that-any-one-can-join-because-we-provide-suffrage-to-all-citizens.
Ideas? Let's hear them! And, Cindy, I tend to laugh out loud when reading or writing political things to, it's caused me to be the odd one of my family! I seem to laugh when watching Law and Order, just because some of the moments are such great victories!, but I get strange looks from my relatives. And cheers to the warm place, it seems that Soro and I are freezing!
Cheers!