What if gov were to be run more with a citizen's component akin to "jury duty"?
Forums:
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/citizens-juries-could-become-the-cor...
Deliberative forms of democracy are certainly coming into fashion. From the Irish Citizens’ Assembly that led to the historic repeal of their constitutional ban of abortion, to that which informed the Health and Social Care Committee’s recent report on future funding options, the government is looking to citizens to solve otherwise intractable issues.
The Department of Digital, Culture Media and Sport has also now decided to pilot participatory democratic approaches in local authorities around England. Scotland and Wales are having their own discussions.
As with many innovations, the devil will be in the detail.
They will need to be representative of the area they are discussing. If half the residents are over 50, half the jury members should be too. They mustn’t be self-selecting: they can’t be yet another platform for the already engaged.
Both the Democracy Matters assembly on city regions and the Citizens’ Assembly on Brexit paid participants a token amount to reach ordinary citizens who wouldn’t normally volunteer.
In order for them to be Citizens’ Juries in more than just name, they need to have three equally important phases.
The first phase is learning about the options and how the process will work. Participants are guided through the current state of affairs and presented with the options for change.
Traditionally this has meant impartial experts preparing papers and delivering short lectures, which Ed Hammond correctly points out can get quite expensive. To combat this, we ran an experimental deliberative programme in the run-up to the EU referendum with recorded videos from academics from the ESRC’s UK in a Changing Europe project.
Following their briefing, participants then hear from campaigners, presenting their case for why the assembly should side with them. Members can question them armed with the knowledge they gained in the previous phase, and – if the assemblies I’ve attended are any measure – will rigorously scrutinise them.
The last phase is the deliberation itself. Breaking up into small groups and facilitated to ensure no one person dominates, they discuss amongst themselves everything they’ve heard, feeding back into the full assembly and eventually voting.
Citizens’ Juries are nothing like the fractious social media debate that tends to pass for political discussion today. All sides have a common pool of knowledge to draw from, and by discussing issues face-to-face, are far more likely to compromise.
They are also, in many ways, at the opposite end from the local councils they will be advising. Due to the voting system, local government in England is not representative of local political opinions, let alone local demographics.
It would be a shame if Citizens’ Juries became just another institution bolted on to deal with the unrepresentative nature of our local electoral system, rather than deal with the problem at the source.
It would be a shame if Citizens’ Juries became just another institution bolted on to deal with the unrepresentative nature of our local electoral system, rather than deal with the problem at the source.Click To Tweet
But together with following Scotland and Northern Ireland in reforming our local electoral system – and dedicated action to improve engagement such as weekend voting, a unified electoral register and scrapping the ID plans – they could become an integral part of a revived local democracy.
- Log in to post comments
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight
The article doesn't make it
The article doesn't make it entirely clear to me how these citizen's components are being established, but the idea resonates a lot with something I've been thinking about a bunch over the past couple of years. It's my conclusion that representative democracy is so full of flaws that it has become counterproductive to its purpose, and that therefore modern democracies need to evolve into direct participative democracies. Yes, that means voting by internet. No, I can't promise that it wouldn't be susceptible to hacking. Yes, I feel strongly that the digital medium is inevitable. So who would write up and debate laws?
Instead of Departments of Whatever, led by presidentially appointed secretaries, the Departments would be made up in something similar to what I'll present here.
1) All members of the Department must have either experience in their area and/or a direct relevance in the decisions being made.
2) Potential Breakdown:
- 20% People with 20 or more years experience in the field (ie: Department of Health, experience equals work in the medical fields, public health, etc)
- 20% People with 10-20 years experience in the field.
- 20% People with 5-10 years experience in the field.
- 20% People fresh out of college (0-5 years experience in the field).
- 20% People with direct relevance to the topic (representatives of groups directly affected by the decision IF pertinent to the particular area).
3) Positions are all on a rotation basis, maybe 4 year terms and every 2 years there's a rotation of half the staff
4) Participation in these Departments is like Jury Duty, mandatory, with a guaranteed spot at the job you left when you started (if you had been working there for 2 years or more, or something like that
Basically, these departments make up laws or propositions, and then people would vote on them directly. The information about the laws would have to be distribute via an easy to understand digital platform that presents arguments in favor and against any proposition, where groups could upload materials that are pertinent to the decision. People who have more stake or more knowledge in that field would be more likely to vote in that particular arena.
It ain't perfect, and I haven't hashed out all the details, and it would take too much space here to do so, but after 42 years on this planet and at least 20 of looking closely at politics and politicians, my conclusion is that the time for representative democracy is done, and direct democracy needs to arise. YMMV.
:)
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight
By the way, I'm pretty sure
By the way, I'm pretty sure this is essentially how the original Athenian democracy was run, with all 'citizens' having to participate in government at one point or another. I agree that all citizen should in one capacity or another participate at least for one four year period in government, at some point in their lives. Our concept of citizen is much broader than the Athenians, which opens up a ton of possibilities, IMO.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Ken D.
Up in Vermont, many villages
Up in Vermont, many villages still have hold regular town meetings where everyone gets a vote on local matters. Its one of the few forms of direct democracy in the USA. I don't know if it would work outside of rural Vermont just because the population sizes would make direct democracy quite unwieldy.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Very interesting JC! I've
Very interesting JC! I've also been giving this general issue a lot of thought and likewise believe we've "outgrown" the usefulness of our current representational system.
I'm not sure that completely abandoning representation without some form of "distillation" (of the whims of the popular majority) would be a good idea? While I embrace Jefferson's idealism of the potential of humans, the pragmatic side of me sides with Adams' more cynical take on humanity that recognizes we'll always have "warts and all" as part of the package. So, the trick would be to try and contain the warts from dominating the scene.
I have been contemplating something related to what you've put forth: that being an "open source Constitutional reform" movement. It shares the same notion of bringing the process closer to The People; whereas it stands less chance of being distorted and leveraged by politicians who've become extremely savvy at leveraging the mechanics of the system for their own gain. I believe the Constitution absolutely needs to be brought up to speed in a stable bi-partisan manner (and in perpetuity) if we are to shed the "quasi legislative power" that has found itself artificially embedded in the Judiciary - that is not directly accountable to sovereignty of The People.
While I see how your "departments" have been carefully thought out to provide a wide range of demographics, why not open it all up to literally anyone? IOW, why limit a good idea from entry into the "marketplace of ideas" based upon one's status or experience?
By the same token, perhaps an open source platform could present "overlays" of the statistical nature of straw poll support (or detraction) by any given demographic? So, as the process moves along the draft process, any given measure could be assessed in terms of its partisan nature (or lack thereof).
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
>>>>>So, the trick would be
>>>>>So, the trick would be to try and contain the warts from dominating the scene.
We've done so well with that here on the Zone.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Lucky Day
Ted Huntington is for full
Ted Huntington is for full democracy.
http://tedhuntington.com/audio/FOS/12_Full_Democracy_Reprise.mp3
www.tedhuntington.com
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
>> I agree that all citizen
>> I agree that all citizen should in one capacity or another participate at least for one four year period in government,
Are you going to pay those people? How?
Median personal income in US:~$31k. You'd have roughly 15 million people in this 4 year service at any given time. So half a trillion more a year in the federal budget. That's not counting the tax loss of these people not working and not contributing to the general fund. Or the cost of these people not giving to entitlement programs (Social Security/Medicare). The youth contribution to these programs is what keeps them afloat.
We got rid of conscription because people didn't want it and it made for a shitty military.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Hitchhiker awaiting "true call"
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Up in Vermont, many villages
Up in Vermont, many villages still have hold regular town meetings where everyone gets a vote on local matters. Its one of the few forms of direct democracy in the USA. I don't know if it would work outside of rural Vermont just because the population sizes would make direct democracy quite unwieldy<<<
Yes, this exists. In fact, the tiny town of 200 people that I live in is run by a General Assembly format where everyone gets to vote on any issue. It's very interesting to say the least. I think most people like it, but at the same time many will also admit to its shortcomings. Sometimes we struggle to fill a quorum (7) and often it's the same people. Long term projects often face the issue of maintaining long term continuity and final approval ... since the profile of any given GA can change dramatically if people suddenly "wake up" and attend, yet weren't part of the original steering process. Likewise, any localized issue that affects a particular resident can be "buffalo'd" if the resident is able to round up enough sympathetic ears.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight
>>because the population
>>because the population sizes would make direct democracy quite unwieldy.
This is where online voting comes in to play. We have to massify the voting possibilities up to the public via online platforms. Make it as easy as giving likes on instagrams...
@FoM - I think some kind of transition would probably be necessary, with the eventual goal of replacing all or as many as possible elected officials. As for constitutional reform, I find it odd that Americans are so opposed to touching the Constitution. I don't know if modifying it or changing it is the solution to USA's woes, but if it is, than it shouldn't be taboo. Most countries are fairly reticent to change their constitution, but in the US it definitely takes on almost mythical proportions.
As for the make-up of the departments (ministries here in Chile), I think that would need to respond to the most practical and relevant demographic involved. Namely, people with experience in the field, people with new ideas in the field, and whatever other relevant players are involved. Maybe those numbers would vary depending on the circumstances of each department. There are details to hash out, no doubt.
Not sure what you mean about the straw-polls, but I'm pretty sure we're talking the same language.
>>>Are you going to pay those people? How?
I haven't done the math, but at least here in Chile, Senators and Congresspeople are paid outrageous salaries and have a whole other chunk of money available for representational expenses and what not. Get rid of all the salaries of the career politicians and that would free up a nice initial starter amount...
I also understand the push against conscription, or what looks like conscription. I guess it would have to start from the agreement that a direct democracy means something everyone must cheris and be willing to sacrifice themselves for, at least for a bit. It's all just ideas at this point, but I think that our virtual world opens up possibilities that are pretty extensive and that we're not really fully exploring yet...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
>> I haven't done the math,
>> I haven't done the math, but at least here in Chile, Senators and Congresspeople are paid outrageous salaries and have a whole other chunk of money available for representational expenses and what not. Get rid of all the salaries of the career politicians and that would free up a nice initial starter amount..
Ball park average of Congressional salaries is about $178k. Rule of thumb is that decent benefits are worth 35% to 40% of gross pay.
$178k * 1.375 = $244.75k
$244.75k * 535 = $130941.25k. Call it $131 million
131 million won't put a dent in 500 billion of new costs.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
Making voting as easy as
Making voting as easy as hitting "like" would not be a good thing IMO. Folks would end up voting for all kinds of crazy ideas or people. Not that the current system avoids this completely.
It would be hard if not impossible to make it hack-proof, especially without a paper trail. People that don't vote are, apparently, more or less satisfied with the status quo. Requiring these folks to participate is not likely to lead to more progressivity.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight
How did you get your 500
How did you get your 500 billion number? I'm curious because in my calculations you would have to assume that this would reduce the costs not only of the elected officials but also the former top-management of existing departments, replaced by groups of people as detailed above.
So, how many Departments are there? Calculate 20-30 new employees each, paid on a salary that's lowish but fair, on a sliding scale per experience. There's your expenses. Your assets are the salaries, representational costs of all elected officials plus the salaries of politically appointed upper members of current department staff. Another expense is setting up the online educational platform. Does that add up to 500 billion?
In the US context, you might consider lowering investment in military and transferring that money to this and other areas...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
>> How did you get your 500
>> How did you get your 500 billion number?
Median personal income in US:~$31k. You'd have roughly 15 million people in this 4 year service at any given time.
cost = number of conscribed youth * income per youth
465 billion = 31000 * 15000000
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight
@Surfdead, I think democracy
@Surfdead, I think democracy is kind of inevitably crazy as the masses of humans can be fickle. But handing over the responsibilities and direct consequences into the hands of voters could also maybe make the fuck-ups that much more obvious, instigating people into being active in the areas that are important to them and/or that are vested in in some way.
I understand that people desire a paper trail, too, but there's a whole generation coming up that never had a paper trail. Once they get into voting (millenials downward), maybe the ONLY way they're likely to vote is if they can do it from their phones, haha. Maybe.
It's a lot of ifs, but I think democracy hinges on the crazy hope that the will of the people, when directly expressed, leads to the path of what's good, ir better, or at least more free. Maybe...
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight
But where is your 15 million
But where is your 15 million number coming from, Ender? How is that broken down?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
>> But where is your 15
>> But where is your 15 million number coming from, Ender? How is that broken down?
I linked it above, but here is again: https://www.statista.com/statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-a...
11.35 + 10.77 = 22.12 million people between the age of 20-24. That's 5 years of ages, so assuming uniform distribution, it's 4/5 of that for your 4 years of service. 4/5 * 22.12 million = 17.7 million.
So 17.7 million, not 15 million. I am/was playing and loose with the numbers, in an attempt to ballpark it. If you aren't putting these kids in work camps, I think 500 billion is the right order of magnitude.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight
So far, the only thing I
So far, the only thing I suggested was to repopulate what are currently known as Departments with relatively small groups of people with a variety of experience and stakes in the respective area. I di not suggest putting all 18-20 year olds to work. While eventually, if direct democracy took hold and was feasible, it could grow into other areas. For now, I suggest a good start is to eliminate the current lawmakers and replace them with direct online voting for laws made up by relatively small groups of experts, etc.
According to a US executive branch webpage, there are 15 departments. So I'm talking about creating at WAY most, 100 people per department, 1500 people at most, at an average of 60k per year, about 90 million per year. Seems reasonable and doable, no?
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: _
>> Seems reasonable and
>> Seems reasonable and doable, no?
No, it would require rewriting the constitution. The large corporations, special interests and military/industrial complex, who currently control the process, would lose their clout. The current representatives would have to voluntarily cede control.
It sounds like an impossible task.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Def. High
>>>>>I suggest a good start
>>>>>I suggest a good start is to eliminate the current lawmakers and replace them with direct online voting for laws made up by relatively small groups of experts, etc.
Current lawmakers would have to eliminate themselves.
Right.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: Andean Flight
Yeah, you're both right. It's
Yeah, you're both right. It's not likely to happen anytime soon, but I reckon the social pressures will eventually grow to a point where direct democracy will be somewhat inevitable. Assuming, that is, that modern democracies survive the next 100 or so years in a democratic form. I like to think about it as well, sort out the details. Millenials and younger are used to a different form of gratification in terms of expressing their needs, and it's intimately tied to their cellphones / interconnectivity. I look forward to seeing how their communicational style translates into social change in the next 50-70 years and then beyond.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Not sure what you mean about
Not sure what you mean about the straw-polls, but I'm pretty sure we're talking the same language<<<
I suppose were are on similar pages, maybe just coming at it from a different angle.
What I meant by "straw polls" under an open source paradigm (where anyone could submit a Constitutional or legislative rewrite): any given open source revision could be voted on in various respects by anyone during the drafting process in effort to shape it toward the best possible outcome as part of a continuous "draft voting" process. Such a voting system could incorporate demographics (of voters) that might be relevant to inform the larger electorate about what sociological or expert cross-sections are favoring / opposing any particular measure. For example, what if the demographic of constitutional law professors were to be filtered for any given "draft vote" so as only that demographic cross-section's voting results were displayed as an "expert demographic"; which could be compared to the electorate as a whole, or a different demographic such as "sole proprietors".
Ideally, the best possible revised version with the least amount of partisan influence will officially be voted upon via an updated Constitutional Convention procedure that would facilitate the adoption of a Constitutional amendment by a more direct democratic methodolgy.
Top of Page Bottom of Page PermalinkFull Name: 19.5 Degrees
Yeah, you're both right. It's
Yeah, you're both right. It's not likely to happen anytime soon, but I reckon the social pressures will eventually grow to a point where direct democracy will be somewhat inevitable. <<<<
If you look at the history of Constitutional amendments, it's mostly a small set of "landmark" changes (i.e. abolishment of slavery, women's right to vote, etc.) encapsulated by "housekeeping" changes (25th comes to mind). However, there's really not much in the way of regular substantial changes to the bulk of the original text.
While I think he took it to the extreme, I believe Jefferson was on to something re: "tearing up the Constitution every generation".
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-12-02-0248
I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self-evident, ‘that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living’: that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it. The portion occupied by any individual ceases to be his when himself ceases to be, & reverts to the society.
The obvious and big issue re: significant Constitutional reform is how to keep it non-partisan. This is where I believe open source might really shine in terms of having the "hood of the car" perpetually open for anyone to closely examine or test without the influence of a party or entity that may have a special interest or hidden agenda.
It will be extremely difficult, if not impossible; however, the handwriting is on the wall if we opt to continue on our current trajectory. However, while it might be an uphill battle, it might be a necessary one; amounting to a "race" to facilitate The People's voice into Constitutional Reform before special interests lock it down to suit their own end.
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2018/07/30/21967/how-mock-convention-hel...