The Future of Democracy Part II: Crowd Sourcing Democracy

In my last post, I ranted on about the Upper Houses of the U.K. and Canada, and how they were out of touch with Modern Democracy, unrepresentative, and upholding the status quo of the two party system.

In a previous post on the Scottish referendum,  I touched upon another fact, that the people of Scotland, as well as Scots abroad were invigorated by the referendum. Excited to be part of the process, and the ability to take part and be involved.

http://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2015/01/24/i-want-what-you-want/

Iceland
http://nationalcollective.com/2014/07/31/crowdsourcing-democracy-who-will-write-scotlands-constitution/

Of course, Iceland has a very small population, which allows for greater buy-in to the political process, but with the internet age, there is no need for anyone to feel their vote does not count, as everything is up in the air in terms of what your vote actually means and counts towards. I am a supporter/follower of various ellectoral reform movements here in Canada and in the UK, but what they are pushing for in the main, has already been turned down by the electorate of the UK, and is not too high on the agenda here in Canada (although with the NDP being in opposition, at least it makes the papers sometimes). I feel that the move to various other voting systems is not going far enough. We are in a new era, and this requires that we keep up with the times...

One way that we can look to this, is Democracy OS.

http://www.ted.com/talks/pia_mancini_how_to_upgrade_democracy_for_the_internet_era


The downside? Well, we'd be giving the power more directly to the majority of the people, and as we see time and time again, People are stupid!

Also, there would be a more direct effect of media bias upon the voting public. Now, the mwdia can hold away over which part the population vote for to some extent, but under a system like this, every issue would be under the sway of the talking heads of convential media outlets, and we all know they are not an un-bias source of information.

Another point to keep in mind is that this relies on a degree of computer literacy, and access, which would, at the moment, limit the ability of some sectors of the public to vote. This is not a small issue, but it is one that will diminish with time.

But then I'm not saying it'd be a perfect system , nor one free from corruption, just a hell of a lot better than the one we have now, and it is what people are looking for, as across the globe, we see dissatisfaction with the status quo.

This year is an election year, both in the UK, and here in Canada.

I am now looking at how I can use this idea fully, by first looking to see if I can use it for any voting that we do in out local Trade Union. There's no reason why it should not be transposable to a smaller voting population afterall, and the more exposure these systems have to the public, and vice versa, the better they become.


This is not the only group to have come up with this idea, it is not new. A quick google search will provide a dozen other alternatives, but it is the future, and the sooner we get on board with this, the sooner we will have the democracy we deserve.

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2015/02/a-different-cluetrain.html

Let's have a look at what you could have won...

Yes yes yes, it's all over
http://freakonomics.com/2014/10/16/how-can-tiny-norway-afford-to-buy-so-many-teslas-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

Quote of the Week

"The future is already here — it's just not very evenly distributed."

William Gibson.

I have just returned from seeing this man speak at Concordia University. The conversation was interesting, and has given me pause to revisit some of his books now I have heard him speak, and give an insight into his thoughts. I read Neuromancer a long time ago, and I can't remember being all that impressed.

The Future of Democracy Part I: Archaic Democracy.

Yesterday morning, I clicked on a link on Facebook to this article. It's a joke article, and a really funny one, poking fun at the way religion can stick it's nose into policy based on science, but the other way around is just not done, at least in the UK. As with all good jokes, it works well because it contains more than a grain of truth.

Lords Spiritual

The thing about this article that stuck with me after the laughing had died down was that it included a wikipedia link to the Lords Spiritual. I must admit, that as much as I am against the House of Lords in principal, it is not something I have researched much, not know much about, so when I read that 26 of it's sitting and voting members are made up of Bishops of the Anglican Church, to say I was gobsmacked is an understatement. I find this fact abhorrent, and counter to all modern democratic principles, even more so that the existence of the House of Lords to begin with.

Okay, so they are only 3.3% of the voting members of the House, (there are a further 5 former Lords Spiritual, who still sit in the House, due to life peerages so really it's 3.9%) but that is not the point . These are men (Women can be anglican bishops, but since the first one was only ordained last month, none of those sitting are female) have not been elected by the public (as all Peers), they have a very definite bias towards religion, thereby denying the division between church and state that I believe should be the cornerstone of all progresive societies. Furthermore, they are all Anglican. For historical reasons, and reasons of established religion, only English Bishops can sit. There is no representation from Scotland (Scottish Bishops were excluded from the Scottish parliament in 1638), Wales (the Church of Wales split in 1920, and the Welsh Bishops lost their seats) or Ireland (dissestablished in 1871). Not to mention people of other faiths within England and the rest of the UK. Only 19.9% of the population of the UK consider themselves members of the Church of England. This is not what we could call an equal representation of constituent states, is it? Don't get me wrong, I don't think the answer would be to install Bishops, or Bishops equivalents from the other member countries of the UK, but to dissestablish the Anglican Bishops sitting now.

The coalition Government slated reform to reduce this number, but these reforms have been dropped, due to lack of Tory support for the bill. Quelle surprise!

Canada

Yes, the House of Lords is an aberration, and one that seems particular to the UK, but a lot of the faults it has are mirrored in the Canadian Senate, another unelected body of power, granted with different selection criterea, but un democratic all the same. Especially since the numbers of Senators per Province are grossly out of date. The second issue, for both upper houses, is that they perpetuate the two party system. This is less so the case in the UK, which has Lords from many (but not all) parties, but even there, there is an inbuilt bias towards the two party system that cannot be easily eradicated. In Canada, it is much worse, with only two of the countries parties having seats (No NDP, Bloc or Green Senators). Last year, all Liberal Senators were removed from the Liberal Party, making them nominal Independant mambers, but the reality is, it seems more a PR stunt than actually making the senators functionally independant.

Reform

Democratic reform, is not a luxury, it is a neccesity. These Houses of sober reflection are undemocratic, and extremely out of date. It is also debateable if they actually do work as brakes on the Houses of Commons, since they can be filled by the Government of the day with their own people, thereby allowing laws to be passed anyway. These systems are centuries out of date, and don't fulfil the role intended of them, and in fact hinder modern democratic processes and full representation of the citizens of these countries. Is it no wonder then, that people are disengaging from politics under these systems, and are actively searching for alternatives?

I had intended to go on to look at some exciting developments and alternative democratic procedures, but I have ranted on for far too long, so that must now become a second post.

Edit:
Seems, the number of members is going up, at an astounding rate!

King Edward I presiding over his Parliament c.1300. The Lords Spiritual are assembled on the left (bishops and abbots dressed in red, priors in black) with Lords Temporal on the right. - See more at: http://holyredundant.org.uk/2012/06/26/test/edward-i-c-1300/#sthash.7TvRBdnj.dpuf

King Edward I presiding over his Parliament c.1300. The Lords Spiritual are assembled on the left (bishops and abbots dressed in red, priors in black) with Lords Temporal on the right. - See more at: http://holyredundant.org.uk/2012/06/26/test/edward-i-c-1300/#sthash.7TvRBdnj.dpuf

King Edward I presiding over his Parliament c.1300. The Lords Spiritual are assembled on the left (bishops and abbots dressed in red, priors in black) with Lords Temporal on the right. - See more at: http://holyredundant.org.uk/2012/06/26/test/edward-i-c-1300/#sthash.7TvRBdnj.dpuf