From: mrj@cs.su.oz.au (Mark James)
Subject: Re: Integrating Direct Democracy with t
Reply-To: mrj@cs.su.oz.au (Mark James)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Distribution: aus
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 1992 06:49:05 GMT
Summary: Reply to Peter Wegner

In article <996200243@peg> losway@peg.pegasus.oz.au writes:
> 
>Because it would ensure a more truthful democratic action, it 
>could be seen as more important than the conventional result and 
>so this disparity could easily be exploited.

Could you clarify what you mean by this.

>Secondly, there is a more philosophical consideration. We may 
>not like politicians, or their intellectual environment, but 
>they do have one significant advantage: it's in their self 
>interest to maintain the system, however flawed and useless it 
>may appear to be at any given time. In other words, its very 
>inertia ensures a certain stability which may not be such a bad 
>thing under some conditions. Would not CV inspired referenda 
>remove the safeguard against hasty deals, vested initiatives, 
>and pre-emptive agendas?

I take your point, but the current system often leads to inertia
where there should be decision-making, and haste when there should be
a careful weighing of the options.  The present government has had
its fair share of hasty deals (pay TV, airline sales), vested initiatives
(several Accord marks, increased postal allowances) and pre-emptive
agendas (republicanism, One Nation tax-cuts).

By bringing public debate further into the decision making process,
the Citizen's Voice system can result in both a slowing down as well
as a speeding up of the processes of government.  Often the gear
change will be in the right direction, and there are safeguards
against hasty or dangerous decisions.

I worry more about a slowing of decision making.  On a small number
of important or contentious issues, politicians will no longer be
able to lead public opinion.  They will first have to convice
the public of the merit of their direction.  One example is the Greiner
public service reforms in NSW.    The initial down-side of job losses
and price increases resulted in a loss in popularity, but when
the long-term budgetary benefits were obvious, the people were more
sympathetic.  Part of the problem was Greiner's lack of public consultation
and explanation.  With the Citizen's Voice system encouraging consulation,
participation, and citizen responsibility, I believe that, if plainly
given the options, the public would have the guts for the hard decisions.

>. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  I would 
>suggest therefore that in order for direct and high-speed 
>democracy to function safely, a society needs an anchor in a - 
>virtually - immutable law (such as the Constitution) which puts 
>the maintenance of these standards above everything else so that 
>the participatory process does not degenerate into wild and 
>unpredictable swings.
> 
>These fluctuations are a function of several factors: size of 
>population, the efficacy of the participatory process (in other 
>words, how long does it take to organise a change in policies), 
>and the appeal of a particular idea. Today, all this is speeding 
>up. Without a steadying influence we are heading for chaos.
> 

Democracy is not a perfect political system.  It is made a whole lot
easier if there is an infallible absolute (God, Monarch) that can underpin
it.  In the absence of such an absolute we employ a Constitution
which, although it can be changed by a simple double majority of citizens,
defines a special set of laws that the people are urged to change reluctantly.  
It is true that we need additions to the constitution such as a Bill
of Rights to safeguard fairness and freedom.

I believe that the large fluctuations often seen in opinion polling
are partly a function of the polling process -- small samples and
cold-calling.  An extended public dicsussion process on an issue would 
lead to a settling of opinion before the vote.

Mark
Newsgroups: aus.politics