Rant: Governance

[whyBish]

I've been thinking lately about governance. The more I think about it, the stranger systems like democracy seem:

1) Indirect influence.
There is a level of indirection between the populace and the decision making process. The population has no say in the decisions, they just get to vote for who has a say in the decision process.

2) Timing.
The population only gets to make the above decision once every (3,4,5,?) years.

3) Quantisation.
Depending on the setup there may be only the representative of the largest voter segment making decisions. This might not even be from a majority vote. Even with systems of proportional representation where a coalition may form there is usually an 'opposition' block essentially negating the point of proportional representation.

4) Assymetric Information and 'expertise'
If each person voted on each issue there would be issues with whether they could collect all relevant information, and if they had the ability to assess it. This is probably the secondary reason for centralised governance behind voting costs, and may become primary.

5) Voting costs.
The cost of collecting and counting votes prohibits frequent use of direct governance. This may eventually change with online technologies, however that would be far in the future (access being a major factor). As far as I am aware the most abitious schemes are for allowing online voting for representatives at the general elections (N.Z. is supposed to be prototyping it as a voting mathod option for the 2005 election)

6) Compromise
Sometimes coalitions form in centralised government such that compromises are made which may advance the position of more than just the largest represented 'party'. Coalitions, however, also allow the potential of getting votes from a number of alternative minority blocks hence reducing the leverage (appropriately?) of minority parties.
Could/Would compromise exist under de-centralised government where no-one has the authority to vote for a group of people?

7) Selling votes.
Under de-centralised governance would you be allowed to give your vote to another person? If so, I can see people transferring their votes to relatives, and/or leaders of their 'religion' (or company or recreational group). I think it would be almost certain for a market to form in votes (e.g. a tradeable commodity)... imagine, hiring votes for a period of time, following the price of votes, cornering the market of votes(!). But then again the cynical(?) view would be that we already have vote buying, and individual vote trading would just allow smaller sized units (i.e. individuals rather than lobby groups) to gain some benefit. The rich would have more say in the direction of the country: is this just economic efficiency at work? is it fair? again, isn't it already happening?


P.S. sorry for ignoring current ettiquette and not posting this as a poll "Politics, is it neato?"

PPS I don't study/have not studied politics or philosophy, so sorry if these are already 'answered'

[WarBlade]

I've been thinking lately about governance.  The more I think about it, the stranger systems like democracy seem:

1)  Indirect influence.
There is a level of indirection between the populace and the decision making process.  The population has no say in the decisions, they just get to vote for who has a say in the decision process.

True. But then how much deciding do you think it's plausible for the masses to do? Using this forum as an example and referring to the 1.10 wishlist threads of yesteryear in particular, we've all seen the chaos inherent in an open discussion where the vast majority of opinions range from a little corny tp wildly ridiculous in some cases. I can only imagine what the results would be if the opinions of the many to have a direct say in national decision making and the imae isn't all that pretty.

Besides, delegation works after a fashion. We've delegated the task to making the decisions to people who are actually willing to sit down and debate the situations at length to collectively hammer out a plan.

Oh, and don't forget referendums. ;)

2)  Timing.
The population only gets to make the above decision once every (3,4,5,?) years.

Sounds ok to me. The turnover is usually about 9 years in our case and a comparable length of time in other countries. I don't really see a point to having to go through the election process more than once every three years if the incumbant government is statistically likely to sit in power for at least 6 years.

3)  Quantisation.
Depending on the setup there may be only the representative of the largest voter segment making decisions.  This might not even be from a majority vote.  Even with systems of proportional representation where a coalition may form there is usually an 'opposition' block essentially negating the point of proportional representation.

Go go MMP!
Actually, I prefer to think of the minor parties of a coalition as being something akin to a consience. They might not hold the power but at least with their support being necessary to the major partner, their voice will be heard and will actually carry some weight.

It could be worse. We could have FPP again! :blink:

4)  Assymetric Information and 'expertise'
If each person voted on each issue there would be issues with whether they could collect all relevant information, and if they had the ability to assess it.  This is probably the secondary reason for centralised governance behind voting costs, and may become primary.

There would also be issues how much time you want the country's workforce not actually being productive, but sitting and analysing the data for the next big decision.

"Hey Roger! You studied that tax reform bill yet?"
"No, this replacement diff is taking longer than usual."
"Well you'd better hurry. The vote is in 15 minutes."
"But we were going over that loophole in building construction codes only an hour ago! I'll never get this done!"

I'm quite accepting of the idea of delegating tasks actually. :D

5)  Voting costs.
The cost of collecting and counting votes prohibits frequent use of direct governance.  This may eventually change with online technologies, however that would be far in the future (access being a major factor).  As far as I am aware the most abitious schemes are for allowing online voting for representatives at the general elections (N.Z. is supposed to be prototyping it as a voting mathod option for the 2005 election)

WTF??? That's news to me. I wonder how they'd pull that off. Hello security loophole expoit! :blink: It would be up to my own sense of honour to stick to the one vote wouldn't it? :blink:

6)  Compromise
Sometimes coalitions form in centralised government such that compromises are made which may advance the position of more than just the largest represented 'party'.  Coalitions, however, also allow the potential of getting votes from a number of alternative minority blocks hence reducing the leverage (appropriately?) of minority parties.
Could/Would compromise exist under de-centralised government where no-one has the authority to vote for a group of people?

I think compromise would be the last problem on anyone's mind if no-one had the authority to vote on people's behalf . . . :unsure:

7)  Selling votes.
Under de-centralised governance would you be allowed to give your vote to another person?  If so, I can see people transferring their votes to relatives, and/or leaders of their 'religion' (or company or recreational group).  I think it would be almost certain for a market to form in votes (e.g. a tradeable commodity)... imagine, hiring votes for a period of time, following the price of votes, cornering the market of votes(!).  But then again the cynical(?) view would be that we already have vote buying, and individual vote trading would just allow smaller sized units (i.e. individuals rather than lobby groups) to gain some benefit.  The rich would have more say in the direction of the country: is this just economic efficiency at work? is it fair? again, isn't it already happening?

Ditching one form of representative for another? Why?
Not to mention the increased likelihod of numerous small vote buyers of dubious quality gaining a disproportionate share. :blink:

P.S. sorry for ignoring current ettiquette and not posting this as a poll "Politics, is it neato?"

LOL :lol: Good shot! ;)

[Kevin]

Just a little note, since you said you haven't really studied philosphy/politics.

You did a good job of coming up with the fairly standard list of issues with most forms of democratic governments that you will see in any government text (it seems most of the texts generally put it at 10, but I don't have one handy since I have been packing some things, like old texts, away in anticipation of moving in 2 months). So, don't be surprised if someone says something like "way to copy such and such a book!". That is all.

[Nystul]

IMHO, your reason #4 is closer to the mark on why direct democracy doesn't work than reason #5. The entire citizen populace does not have the time or desire to wade through all of it's own ideas and figure out what is best. The process has to take place on a smaller scale, and the people involved need to have the necessary resources at their disposal in order to make informed decisions. The physical process of voting is trivial by comparison.

For a good example, consider the United States budget. Here is something that absolutely has to be done each year (or at least often enough to keep pace with evolving legislation). All of the programs that are in place must be funded, decisions must be made about where that money comes from, projections must be made about how the incoming funds compare to the outgoing. Now imagine the chaos if 100-200 million citizens were allowed to directly provide their input, proposing amendments to the budget, squabbling over the details, and voting yes or no. How many people would be willing to devote the time necessary? How informed would they be? Would anything ever be accomplished? Having been to some school board meetings and township trustee meetings, I must say that even in the most direct possible form of democracy it would be absolutely essential to have someone who runs the agenda (and this person would necessarily have far more influence than the average person). Otherwise literally nothing gets done.

Representative government is a practical compromise. It allows every citizen real political influence without having to devote their lives to politics. We pay the representatives to set aside their real jobs (at least in theory they have real jobs!) and devote a portion of their lives to running the government. The timing of elections also exists for a good reason. If a group of legislators is not in office for several years, for example, they won't be around long enough to see that the legislation they passed is actually funded and implemented.

[whyBish]

.

"But then how much deciding do you think it's plausible for the masses to do?"

No idea. I'm not argueing for direct indivdual representation, just stating that central govenance seems strange (and individual governance may be stranger?)

But here's a thought, in N.Z at least, there is a huge number of people that don't vote, which essentially counts their vote as proportional to those that do vote. So I'm definately not saying that everyone would need to vote on every issue under individual representation. And the case that some people don't have the ability to decide on all issues is the same in central government: is the best party really being voted for by the masses (when most don't understand economics/politics/health/education/foreign policy/security/policing etc.)

There is the possibility of a lack of cohesive vision (strategy) without delegation for a period of time.

"Besides, delegation works after a fashion. We've delegated the task to making the decisions to people who are actually willing to sit down and debate the situations at length to collectively hammer out a plan."

This brings up another issue I was thinking about this morning:
Trust:
Do you trust your representative to vote according to what you expected when they were elected. Current systems have no penalty (other than the threat of not being re-elected) for politions that don't keep, or break, promises.

"Oh, and don't forget referendums. ;) "

... you mean those things (in NZ) we get to 'vote' on that aren't legally binding, and that politicians have a track record of ignoring (e.g. the vague 'harsher sentencing') ;)

"I don't really see a point to having to go through the election process more than once every three years if the incumbant government is statistically likely to sit in power for at least 6 years."

But it does limit what you are voting on, you are voting on a "lump of issues" and you may not even agree with everything that a party is promising (even if they keep it ;) ).
It also potentially introduces artificial cycles (not neccessarily a bad thing) such as large budget spending in the election year to fade memories of unpopular decisions/broken promises made after election.

"It could be worse. We could have FPP again!"
America still does? and FPP means that essentially if you did not vote for the winner then your vote does not count, same as in proportional representation though if you happened for an 'opposition' party, except that if the largest party is not a sole majority you may get a slight say when their coalition parners will not support them.

"There would also be issues how much time you want the country's workforce not actually being productive, but sitting and analysing the data"
True, but do people actually do that now before the election (I really don't think so) although there definately is the issue of 'idiot votes' like those that vote for the legalise cannibis(sp?) party or McGillicuddy Serious.

"WTF??? That's news to me. I wonder how they'd pull that off. Hello security loophole expoit!"
A quick search brought up how they would pull it off:
http://www.eucybervote.org/Reports/KUL-WP2...4V1-v1.0-02.htm
NZ for local elections:
"New Zealand is discussing legislation to allow for electronic voting to be used in local elections." http://www.paris-conference-2001.org/eng/c...ix_contrib.html
NZ for general election:
"The world's first national electronic voting trial is scheduled
for testing in New Zealand, in December, with around 21,000 volunteers
from across the country - about 1 per cent of the voting population."http://www.mtn.org/edem-elect/archive/msg01457.html
Funnily enough I couldn't find a mention at the first site I visited www.election.govt.nz

[whyBish]

So, don't be surprised if someone says something like "way to copy such and such a book!".

That is good news. i.e. that they are points as opposed to the random bollox that I usually write :)

[--Pete]

Hi,

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time." -- Sir Winston Churchill

And, of course, neither you not Sir Winston are really talking of pure democracy. In both cases, you are talking of some form of representative government. And, yes, there are all sorts of evils that can crop up in this system. It is up to the people to demand the best government they can get.

But what alternatives is there? A pure democracy would be worse, for reasons that others have pointed out. Anything other than a democracy could be better in individual cases, but again would be worse on the average. Governments mean power, and as has been long known, power corrupts. Power also breeds a desire for more power. Which is why some form of revolution, some form of retaking power by the people is necessary every now and again.

But that is the nature of the beast. Finding the balance between a government weak enough not to be a threat to the people and strong enough to protect and defend the people is almost impossible. It is even harder when the people demand that the government provide all sorts of services.

--Pete

[WarBlade]

... you mean those things (in NZ) we get to 'vote' on that aren't legally binding, and that politicians have a track record of ignoring (e.g. the vague 'harsher sentencing')  ;)

Yeah those are the ones. :D Actually in the instance of that 'harsher sentencing' question a couple of elections back, the wording was so poor it could not be legally binding anyway. It was two questions rolled into one with the correct answer being "Well duh, and Yes/No" with the only options being "Yes" and "No". Naturally 90% voted "Yes", I voted "No" (because unlike most of the country I refused to be duped by BS wording) and many people seemed to be complaining about the wording afterwards. :lol:

No, that one had to be dropped. The question itself was screwed.

OTOH there was the referendum in which we made the decision to drop FPP in favour of proportional representation. "Yes/No" for proportional with the majority voting "Yes". There were something like four or five options of proportional representation systems: MMP, STV and a couple of other freakish transferable vote systems IIRC. "MMP" had the vast majority and two elections later we were voting under MMP. :)

We got exactly what the majority voted for in the referendum. :)

"It could be worse. We could have FPP again!"
America still does?  and FPP means that essentially if you did not vote for the winner then your vote does not count, same as in proportional representation though if you happened for an 'opposition' party, except that if the largest party is not a sole majority you may get a slight say when their coalition parners will not support them.

Yes America still does, but then can you imagine Americans' "We - Will - Win" attitude coming to terms with our "we can compromise and negotiate" system. It's a stretch I think.

And as for votes not counting, take my position. I live in an area that has always voted for a National candidate. Historically I could vote National, vote anybody else (didn't really matter who), or stay at home and my area would send a National candidate into Parliament every time. Now I actually have a vote that does something and I'm happy with the results of the last two elections.

"There would also be issues how much time you want the country's workforce not actually being productive, but sitting and analysing the data"
True, but do people actually do that now before the election (I really don't think so) although there definately is the issue of 'idiot votes' like those that vote for the legalise cannibis(sp?) party or McGillicuddy Serious.

McGillicuddy Serious seemed to have pulled out these days. Maybe they realized that after MMP there was a risk they might actually get into Parliament . . . :lol: And Legalize Cannabis were only ever about as likely to get in as Christian Heritage. Bunch of monkeys, the pair of them. <_<

And no, most people don't sit and analyze all available data prior to elections. It's much easier for the mindless masses to keep things in general terms they can understand. Kind of like the convenience of delegation really.

"WTF??? That's news to me. I wonder how they'd pull that off. Hello security loophole expoit!"
A quick search brought up how they would pull it off:
http://www.eucybervote.org/Reports/KUL-WP2...4V1-v1.0-02.htm
NZ for local elections:
"New Zealand is discussing legislation to allow for electronic voting to be used in local elections." http://www.paris-conference-2001.org/eng/c...ix_contrib.html
NZ for general election:
"The world's first national electronic voting trial is scheduled
for testing in New Zealand, in December, with around 21,000 volunteers
from across the country - about 1 per cent of the voting population."http://www.mtn.org/edem-elect/archive/msg01457.html
Funnily enough I couldn't find a mention at the first site I visited www.election.govt.nz

Thanks. I'll go check it out. B)

[Occhidiangela]

That is the title of a pretty neat book concerning representative government. Part wry cricitism, part humor, part practical commentary. The book was written by P.J. O'Rourke in the mid to late 80's. His title alone tells a story about the inherent pitfalls of representative systems. The question he tries to answer is: 'Who is spending the public money and why? And how does that get decided?'

Your concern is one that has been troubling political theorists since before Locke and Jefferson: how do you make a perfect government staffed by imperfect people? Perfect rules? How do you create perfect rules? Each alternative has been an attempt change the 'strong man rules' model, since that model puts everyone at the mercy of the benevolence of yet another human being . . .

Oh, yeah, what the heck am I talking about, ask Mohamed, he knew all of the answers. The rest of all this stuff is a total cock up! (J/K!)

[ShadowHM]

This brings up another issue I was thinking about this morning:
Trust:
Do you trust your representative to vote according to what you expected when they were elected.&nbsp; Current systems have no penalty (other than the threat of not being re-elected) for politions that don't keep, or break, promises.

This question resonated with me following a 'town hall' meeting I attended last night. My little neighbourhood is about to receive an influx of new development. Over the next five years I will see another 10,000 people moving within a few short blocks of my home.

Most of the folks in attendance were grey-hairs (like me) or white-haired senior citizens. Most of them, voters all, did not want this to happen at all. Some were quite offended at our local councillor for 'letting it happen'.

But the world changes. Rules change (such as those imposed by higher levels of government about everything from zoning to immigration to transportation), and demographics change whether anyone likes it or not. The best that we can hope for is that the person elected goes about their job trying get the best possible deal under the circumstances. Negotiating with a developer to get additional park space provided makes more sense to me than standing there voting 'no' when it is going to happen anyway.

Therefore, to me, it need not be the end of a political career if the person elected does not do exactly what I expected when I voted them in.

Sometimes I have to accept that I may have to re-elect the 'lying bastards', because they did indeed provide good governance.

Some time ago, a Federal government here changed the tax rules immensely. We got a Goods and Services Tax (flat percentage on most products) instead of a hidden manufacturers sales tax. The general populace hated the change. It looked to them as if we had a new tax, instead of a replacement, as the previous tax had been imposed further up the chain, and had been there so long that it included an incredible hodge-podge of exceptions that fostered a lot of bureaucracy. One of the political parties ran on the platform that they would abolish the GST. Guess what happened once they were in office?
And, guess what happened in the following election? They were re-elected anyway, because other things had changed, and they did seem the best party for the job.

BTW......

although there definitely is the issue of 'idiot votes' like those that vote for the legalise cannibis(sp?) party

Hey, sometimes the little niggling of such parties can make a long-term difference. Today the Federal Government here tabled legislation to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana products. Doubtless there will be much concern and brow-beating from the Federal Government of our neighbours to the south about this. But it is going to happen.

[Occhidiangela]

Some years back, small amounts for personal use were in fact decriminalized. What I don't know is if that has been overturned lately. Other states also had some decrimilalizing statutes in the late 1970's, but once the War on Drugs got spun up late 80's . . . some things changed.

[Griselda]

I think all of the West coast states have passed some sort of decriminalization laws that are still on the books. I know that simple marijuana possession in Oregon is a violation- similar in cost and severity to a traffic ticket. The penalties get quite a bit stricter if you have an ounce or more or are found to be dealing it.

Marijuana is also legal for medical purposes in quite a few places out here, but, last I heard, the federal government has taken to reminding states and cities that the federal law trumps any local ordinances.

I don't really keep up on the issue other than what I see now and again in the paper, but your post was a good reminder that many parts of the USA are currently in an entirely different place as far as marijuana legiaslation goes.

-Griselda

[Kasreyn]

is when idiots who don't know what the word means think "decriminalization" means the same thing as "legalization". Just got in an argument with one the other day and she refused to believe me. She was so dead set in her assumptions that nothing could budge her. *exasperated sigh*

Personally, I'm for the legalization of all drugs which are less harmful than currently legal drugs. Currently, alcohol and nicotine are legal. Marijuana is not as dangerous as either of those. Why is it illegal?

Besides, I heard an interesting factoid on Marketplace (a news radio economic program from NPR) today: analysts suspect the federal government could gain hundreds of millions in taxes on marijuana sales from legalization. This doesn't even factor in the savings in law enforcement costs.

I only wish this slow, creeping legalization process could be sped up to get it over with, but society still doesn't seem quite ready for it. =\

-Kasreyn

[kandrathe]

I'm not sure about the histories in all countries, but the legalization of "hard" liquor in the US is still contentious. I grew up in a "dry" county, that is, the only legal sales of any liquor were in municipal liquor stores. I think the same "local control" would be appropriate for the legalization of other vices. What is normal (or NORML) for Sonoma, CA, may not be normal for Macon, GA, or Ogden, UT.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

I think all of the West coast states have passed some sort of decriminalization laws that are still on the books. I know that simple marijuana possession in Oregon is a violation- similar in cost and severity to a traffic ticket. The penalties get quite a bit stricter if you have an ounce or more or are found to be dealing it.

This is exactly the "decriminalization " that the Canadian Federal Government is proposing as a change to our own system. Yet the US Administration is threatening Canadian Government with increased border security and slowdowns at the checkpoints because of it?

When the same laws are in effect within their own nation by individual States?

A dozen U.S. states, however, already have decriminalized the possession of small amounts. California, for example, provides for a fine of $100 for one ounce (28.5 grams).

Could someone enlighten this for me? All I'm seeing at the moment is a screaming case of hypocrisy. :blink:

[--Pete]

Hi,

The Federal Government with its DEA and all has a vested interest in making the use and sale of as many substances as possible a crime. And since federal fiscal responsibility doesn't matter, they'll gladly jail a vast percentage of the population. The states don't have such an incentive, and are being more reasonable about the whole thing. Of course, even the states are practicing a bit of hypocrisy. It is not illegal for person A to buy a small amount of weed from person B for personal use. But it is illegal for person B to sell it.

--Pete

[whyBish]

is when idiots who don't know what the word means think "decriminalization" means the same thing as "legalization".&nbsp; Just got in an argument with one the other day and she refused to believe me.&nbsp; She was so dead set in her assumptions that nothing could budge her.&nbsp; *exasperated sigh*

Reminds me of a saying outside my hairdressers:
"When arguing with an idiot, make sure they are not doing the same"
(Although not relevant in your case... not enough time to reply fully tonight)

[ShadowHM]

It is not illegal for person A to buy a small amount of weed from person B for personal use.&nbsp; But it is illegal for person B to sell it.

Despite the fact that it will be a Federal Law, and thus, at least, applicable in the same way to all citizens, the new law will still make the vendor of the 'small amount that only carries a fine for possession' a criminal.

Further, while it already is perfectly legal for some people with specific medical conditions (and a medical certificate) to own and use marijuana the person they buy it from is still committing a crime. Those with medical certificates can grow some for personal use, but heaven help the caregiver who helps them do it, no matter how sick they are. That too is also illegal.

Much has been promised about granting federal licences to grow medicinal marijuana, but no progress worthy of note has been accomplished.

[Occhidiangela]

And it started in the Clinton presidency with bipartisan support. Those folks getting arrested are being sent, in some cases, to prisons that are run by contractors, not the state, but contractors. Right, that's someone who cares about the eventual reform of the prisoner, some one in it for a buck. Having seen the damage done to some federal work forces by mass 'contracting' and the loss of talent and corporate knowledge inherent in that, I can only present a loud raspberry.

I must ask how 'prison for profit' is a valid by product of our system? The allegation is that states are inefficient. OK, do the Deming, and work at finding and eliminating inefficiency. It takes work, but some sectors of the federal government have found ways to apply process control to cut waste. States can as well. Paying someone a profit margin does not represent waste? Lets see, if he can do it for less, make a corporate profit, he must simply be paying the employees less money for the same job, or for doing a job less well. Wonderful.

The State puts the criminal in jail. I contend that the State incurs an obligation to the prisoner to ensure humane treatment. There is no profit margin in rehabilitation, so for damned sure, contract run prisons are merely canning trouble for future use.

For getting stoned.

Blast it, is this 1968 all over again? *pulls hair*