Let's improve democracy

[Spoonist]

How about a thread where we discuss how to improve democracy?

Some ground rules:
1) You may steal good ideas from existing systems, but if you do so then please say from where it is for context.
2) When giving your idea explain why you think it would improve democracy.
3) Don't piss on another democratic system without giving a suggestion on how to improve it.
4) Don't piss on another poster's suggestion without giving your own suggestion on how to improve it.
5) Don't limit the improvement to your own political system only. If its a good enough suggestion it should work in any democracy.

I'll hold off with my suggestion not to poison the well.

[Bottlestein]

There are some decisions that can be made democratically, and some that cannot.

For those that can: We have to suppose there's a small number of alternatives given to the voters.
Run Condorcet analyses to check that the Condorcet component does not overwhelm the Transitive component, and thus the vote is non-strategic.

After M*(N+1) votes, where M was the number of alternatives, and N the number of different pieces of legislature, we go back and "recheck" to see if we have a dictator under Arrow's 3 Axioms.

If we have a dictator, we see if he has been voting strategically. Since some of the issues must be dependent, we can check this assuming he is rational. To gauge whether or not he is rational, we can use whatever tests we have now in Psych / Behavioral Econ. If he is irrational, then he is just an unwitting dictator, and he can be released back into the voting population.

If we find a large number of rational dictators, then we reduce the total payoff for democratic decisions (raise taxes, etc). However, we increase the long term incentive - better pension schemes, etc - for short term loss. Since it is more natural for humans to be strategic in the short term, the rational dictators will have a hard time adapting their strategy.

After a few cycles voting will become non-strategic for everyone, and we can grant Alderperson status (or the voting pool can elect them) without fear that the Alderperson will be Agenda - Setting, since he or she will not know how the electorate behaves.

[Tanasinn]

Corporate/business entities should be forbidden from funding any political campaign at any level, and there should be a low-thousands cap on donations by any given individual. Punishments for violating this should be severe, on the order of a violent felony. A democratic system where existing powerful individuals can simply buy candidates is not a democracy at all.

[Simon_Jester]

I think the individual donation cap should be on the order of fifty to a hundred dollars, with candidates receiving a significant initial lump sum of funding from federal payments.

Presidential candidates spend on the order of a few dollars per citizen in the US; there's no reason you should be able to give them hundreds of times that amount of money on your own initiative.

[Phantasee]

How would that work when you have a well-off person wanting to exercise his right to free speech by airing commercials in favour of a candidate? Or is that alright with you? What if, to counter this individual, a group of people get together to form a non-profit that pools their resources so they can do the same for a candidate of their choice?

Or do you make an exception to individuals and non-profits?

[Rye]

I think all expenses and money going to all democratically appointed officials and campaigns, lobbies, etc should be subject to freedom of information. Maybe even a twitter feed, so we can all see in real time what they're spending our money on and who's paying them.

On a more radical note, I have often wondered how it would affect things for the better and worse if MPs were forced to work for minimum wage and live in council estates for the duration of their jobs.

[Knife]

All campaigns for public office are publicly funded, a prospective candidate must fill out appropriate paper work by a certain deadline, and those candidates running will participate in X amount of publicly televised debates and other events funded by tax money. No private funds are used at all for anything. 3rd party funds making commercials and/or other campaign devices are not free speech, rather an attempt to interfere in an election.

To wit, all campaign seasons will start in Oct and end in Nov. One month to tell the voting public your stance on issues and why they should vote for you, then we vote.

[Chaotic Neutral]

How about 2 years of college required for voting? Could this help?

[Tanasinn]

How about 2 years of college required for voting? Could this help?

Yes, let's turn a de facto plutocracy into an open plutocracy.

No.

[Phantasee]

How about 2 years of college required for voting? Could this help?

That's...not really a democracy, is it? "The People" isn't usually defined as "everyone with a couple years of college". Especially since we've expanded our definition of "the People" since the days of Athens to include more than just male property owners.

[Alyrium Denryle]

How about 2 years of college required for voting? Could this help?

That's...not really a democracy, is it? "The People" isn't usually defined as "everyone with a couple years of college". Especially since we've expanded our definition of "the People" since the days of Athens to include more than just male property owners.

I have been thinking about this very problem for some time

Alyrium's Ideal Quasi-Democratic Government

Legislative Branch: Bicameral, Parliamentary

Upper House: Comprised of committees on various subjects (Economic Policy, Science and Technology etc) composed of groups of experts in relevant fields (So the committee on Science and Technology will have scientists, engineers, ethicists, economists, and lawyers). Committee members are selected by joint vote of professional organizations in the relevant fields, and serve 3 year rotating terms with 1/3rd up for rotated out every year. This is very similar to a scientist serving on an NSF program management board, and no one can serve twice in a row. This keeps a certain amount of institutional knowledge, but does not disrupt careers overmuch. Once legislation is drafted, it gets voted on by the combination of all committees and gets sent to the lower house.

Has the power to hold votes of no confidence to remove the chief executive, forcing a new election.

The Lower House: By majority vote can vote down any legislation passed by the upper house, but cannot create their own legislation. This body will be made up of those elected by The People. It is also this body who selects and votes on the chief executive from their own number. Up for popular re-election in their districts every two years, apportioned by state population. Redistricting done by a computer program that creates continuous and more-or-less organiform districts based on population density. No Jerry-Mandering.

Has the power to hold a vote of no confidence and remove the entire upper house, forcing a new election.

Executive: The chief executive has many of the same duties as the modern american president. Commander in chief over the military, reponsibility for overseeing the enforcement of laws passed by the legislature, holds veto power over laws passed by the legislature. May introduce legislation to upper house. Has the power to dissolve and force re-election of the lower house.

Judiciary: System, Professional Jury, Inquisitorial/Adversarial Hybrid

Judges and prosecutors elected by the relevant professional organization for lawyers in their relevant jurisdictions. All criminal lawyers rotate doing defense work. Professional juries present. Defense and Prosecutors play similar roles as they do in the US system, but judges have independent fact-finding and investigatory staff and may directly question witnesses and experts.

4th Branch: Independent Council

An apolitical organization, the sole purpose of which is to root out corruption in government. Has unlimited ability to investigate any member of any branch of government, and reports directly to the Omnibudsman of the lower house, and to a special branch of the courts who specifically prosecute government corruption.

Campaign Finance: Only applies to lower house, public funding only. Persons and non-profits may do campaigning for persons or policy matters respectively in order to persuade members of the lower house. Persons and non-profits may petition to have legislative proposals put before the upper house.

[Archaic`]

Corporate/business entities should be forbidden from funding any political campaign at any level, and there should be a low-thousands cap on donations by any given individual. Punishments for violating this should be severe, on the order of a violent felony. A democratic system where existing powerful individuals can simply buy candidates is not a democracy at all.

Similar laws have been gotten around in the past by both corporate/business entities and non-business entities (eg. Trade Unions, NGO's, etc) by having the donations all be funded by the organisation, but on paper be made on behalf of one of their (staff) members. At least if it's done by the entity itself it's easier to track where the money is really coming from.

[Alphawolf55]

Kind of like Alryium, I would propose instead of having one Congress and one Senate, having various councils built by experts, perhaps letting people vote for them directly. One, it settled the issue of having to vote for all or nothing candidates (want a fiscally conservative government, but don't want a fundamentalist christian agenda?), also it eliminates the problem of Congressmen having too know too many subjects that require around the clock studying.

I'd also argue for a state service system like Israel, where every serves in some capacity. Along with that, I wouldn't say that a college degree is required to vote, but voters must pass a basic information test developed by a non-partisan group that shows that they know what candidates stand for. Undecided if the test would be general or specifc. Like if it would be policies in general, or you'd have to fill out a healthcare one, tax one.

Also outright public finance of campaigns.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Kind of like Alryium, I would propose instead of having one Congress and one Senate, having various councils built by experts, perhaps letting people vote for them directly. One, it settled the issue of having to vote for all or nothing candidates (want a fiscally conservative government, but don't want a fundamentalist christian agenda?), also it eliminates the problem of Congressmen having too know too many subjects that require around the clock studying.

Thing is, I was trying to avoid having legislation being written by people with ideological agendas. Professional organizations, where position is driven by merit are a better idea. The voting public is stupid, but still ought be represented, hence the lower house having majority-veto.

[Alphawolf55]

Kind of like Alryium, I would propose instead of having one Congress and one Senate, having various councils built by experts, perhaps letting people vote for them directly. One, it settled the issue of having to vote for all or nothing candidates (want a fiscally conservative government, but don't want a fundamentalist christian agenda?), also it eliminates the problem of Congressmen having too know too many subjects that require around the clock studying.

Thing is, I was trying to avoid having legislation being written by people with ideological agendas. Professional organizations, where position is driven by merit are a better idea. The voting public is stupid, but still ought be represented, hence the lower house having majority-veto.

I understand your point but I'm always suspcious of self-voting groups, they self-perptuate and it allows for potential of corruption. Granted there was the lower house, but what would be the system of voting for no confidence?

Also I was hoping the test would get rid of alot of the outright idiots who believe in lies like death panels and Obama being a muslim.

Additionally, how would it account for things like Gun Control? An issue where the experts can greatly disagree or personal choice issues like smoking, marijuana and alcohol? Who decides who is a legitimate expert in these cases?

[Alyrium Denryle]

I understand your point but I'm always suspcious of self-voting groups, they self-perptuate and it allows for potential of corruption. Granted there was the lower house, but what would be the system of voting for no confidence?

That is why no one can serve more than once in a row. The system for voting no-confidence would be a 60 supermajority vote. Additionally, the professional organizations would post candidates from their respective number, but the combination of all of them in the relevant group would vote. So the ESA would post a lot of candidates, but the smaller societies would get a say on which of those get in. So, say that the ESA (Ecological society of America) can post 5 senators, but they elect from their number 10 to stand before all ecologists. The top five then get selected.

Additionally, how would it account for things like Gun Control? An issue where the experts can greatly disagree or personal choice issues like smoking, marijuana and alcohol? Who decides who is a legitimate expert in these cases?

Gun control? Criminologists, statisticians, social epidemologists, lawyers, ethicists, police officers. Yes, non academics can be considered experts if they have the relevant know how.

Smoking etc: Doctors, Lawyers (lawyers will be everywhere generally) economists, historians. The list goes on...

[Alphawolf55]

Are yousure 60 super majority is smart though? It could lead to the same problem now. Lets say there's reason to believe experts are completely out of their minds on an issue that was not foreseeable, couldn't the minority group just block all attempts like the Republicans do now?

Also lets say ten tax experts were selected. 6 keynesian and 4 austrian. But the body is filled with a majority of keynesian whats to stop from them making sure only their guys get elected?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Are yousure 60 super majority is smart though? It could lead to the same problem now. Lets say there's reason to believe experts are completely out of their minds on an issue that was not foreseeable, couldn't the minority group just block all attempts like the Republicans do now?

It could, but no matter how you deal with the issue, there will be drawbacks. A 50% majority is too few, because it can create massive pendulum swings with votes of no confidence when certain factions gain power in the lower house. Much more than 60% and it becomes almost impossible. 60%, provided everyone is reasonable, is a good balance. Hopefully though, with their power reduced, corruption police, and with all public finance, political parties will not be nearly as strong as they are now when it comes to influencing votes, and large lobbies will not collectively own large sections of the legislature. As a result, that situation will be largely reduced.

Also lets say ten tax experts were selected. 6 keynesian and 4 austrian. But the body is filled with a majority of keynesian whats to stop from them making sure only their guys get elected?

If a body of experts is comprised mostly of a given group, that is a bit of a hint as to which is more correct. I might as well ask "What if the Linnean Society is filled with mostly with evolutionists?"

Not to speculate on which economic school is correct, personally I think that outside of behavioral economics, the whole discipline is a pseudoscience because their definition of value is a tautology... that is a story for another day though.

[blahface]

Alyrium Denryle , I really like your ideas.

I've been thinking about this for a while. I'm even creating my own mock constitution of what I'd like for the U.S. This is a brief description of what I'd do:

Citizen's Centers
Each town would have at least one citizen's center in which citizens can start and sign petitions and get information on candidates for office.

Elected Press
In addition to a private press, there would be an elected press that would have guaranteed access to the candidates and elected officials. Five members of this press would be elected per race through an Australian style single-transferable vote. Members of this press would also write up questionnaires that candidates for office would have to fill out.

Elections
campaigning
Campaigning would be restricted to online only. Candidates would not need to raise money for a campaign. All candidates would have a web page and would have an official message board in which they'd debate on throughout the campaign. Furthermore, candidates would have to fill out a questionnaire detailing their political positions. A citizen could take the same questionnaire on a website and get a list of candidates that most identify with him.

Primaries
Primaries would be non partisan. This election would be done over the internet. Citizens would have about a couple of weeks to vote. There vote would be confidential, but not secret. Each ballot cast would be publicly viewable online with a corresponding ID number. Only the citizen that cast the vote should know the ID of his electronic ballot record. A voter can see at any time if his vote has been manipulated. To correct for this if it were to ever happen, a citizen can go to a citizen's center directly and fill out a form to change his vote.

Each time a clerk looks at confidential information through a computer, that action would be recorded and sent to an independent body in the form of Clerk X looks at voter information of Citizen Y. The citizen would be notified and can file a complaint to a judge.

Since voting would be done online and a citizen can be pressured into voting a certain way by someone standing over him, I am just looking for an approximation of what candidates the people like. To get this approximation, four candidates would be elected through single transferable vote.

General Election
After four candidates are elected, they will be interviewed by the elected press and have mandatory debates. The first debate will feature all four candidates. In the next 6 debates, each candidate will debate each other one on one. The last debate will feature all 4 candidates again. These debates will be televised.

Voting will be done through a secret ballot and citizens would have a full week to cast their vote at a polling station. Voting would be done electronically, but there would also be a paper printout so the voter can verify that his vote was recorded accurately. Each paper printout will have a record ID in bar code that would correspond to the electronic record. This will make it easy to verify that electronic records have not been tampered with.

The voting system used to determine a winner would be the Condorcet method. The candidate that beats the most candidates in pairwise competitions would win. If there is a cycle in which A>B, B>C, and C>A, the candidate with the weakest win margin in his victory would be eliminated.

Legislature
Lower House
There should be one representative for every 250,000 people. The representatives would be mostly working from a local office so he is close to his constituents and he would legislate online. There would be a public forum in which the representatives can debate issues. The representatives would divide into 16 primary caucuses and each caucus would elect a speaker to send to the Capitol. These speakers would pick a topic for debate and the legislature would have a chance to write a bill that corresponds to the topic. The representatives would all vote on a topic suggested by the speaker to put into the debate queue.

Four caucuses may combine into a super-caucus that would have the power to write a bill that is relevant to the debate topic. Representatives would rank the bill versions that they approve and the bill version that wins out would be determined by the Condorcet method. Each bill must have majority approval from the legislature to become law.

Each super-caucus will select a representative to make their case in a formal timed televised debate. With majority approval, the debate time can be extended. The representative selected to debate doesn't have to be a member of the legislature.

Upper House
The Upper House would be made up of two representatives per state/providence. The Upper House would only give up or down votes on bills passed by the Lower House.

Political Action Committees
Citizens may organize to create and support PAC's. Citizens will have a number of points that they can distribute among PAC's each year. PAC's can exchange these points for lobby time to make their case to office officials. PAC's will also have a central public web forum in which they can debate topics with other rival PAC's.

Judicial Congress
An elected Judicial Congress will appoint all federal judges, jury members, and prosecutors. The judicial congress will also be able to remove judicial officials with 60% consensus.

A member of the Judicial Congress must have a law degree.

To be eligible to vote for a member of this congress, a citizen must pass a special test that shows that he adequately knows the law. This test may be retaken every six months and all study material will be available online.

Specialist Boards
Congress may have the power to create departments to do research and provide expert advice. These departments would be directed by Specialist Boards that would be elected by people who have degrees in that field.

The Specialist Boards would create and write up the required curriculum for classes in their field.

- - -

My ideas are a lot more complicated than this, but the exact details would take up too many pages.

[Bottlestein]

Not to speculate on which economic school is correct, personally I think that outside of behavioral economics, the whole discipline is a pseudoscience because their definition of value is a tautology... that is a story for another day though.

...

Anyway: It seems as though you and Alphawolf are thinking about which decisions should be taken by experts - which is undoubtedly necessary for government building.

However, I interpreted Spoonist's question to be: Assuming we have a series of decisions that have to be put to a vote, how do we prevent strategic voting and Agenda-Setting on a mass scale, i.e. "corruption". This was what I attempted to address in the post, and wasn't sure if you were agreeing with the idea, or rejecting it.

(Although - I think you partially solved the Agenda - Setting problem by short term penalty - I'll have to check your "rotational" system...)

[blahface]

Rereading my post makes me cringe. I really should have proof read my first post here. Since I can't edit posts, I'd just like to point out that I do realize I used the wrong their.

[Uncluttered]

I'd like to see more sortition in low level elections. A random p erson picked off the street would do as well as any congressman.

I'd like to see a simple campaign finance law. Money can't come from anywhere but from the district where the official would preside.

The difficulty is with any election is that money is fungible.

[weemadando]

Remove campaign funding entirely. In Australia candidates receive public funding based on a legislated model (previous numbers of votes for them etc) from the Electoral Commission and all campaign spending is overseen by the Electoral Commission. Make them run the campaign solely out of that. And should they get elected audit them and their families, business and other interests so hard year after year that it would be impossible for them to hide pay-offs, kick-backs etc.

[Rye]

I forgot one of my coolest and most popular ideas: The negative vote.

For elections when you don't feel compelled to vote for any one party but you do hate one party more than the others (BNP, Tories, Labour, whoever), you can instead use your vote to take off one of their supporters. People basically do this already by voting for their main rivals, but I would prefer to have a purely negative effect without voting tactically.

[Thanas]

That is why no one can serve more than once in a row. The system for voting no-confidence would be a 60 supermajority vote. Additionally, the professional organizations would post candidates from their respective number, but the combination of all of them in the relevant group would vote.

How does this help with the creation of institutionalized memory and the boni that brings?