Open ballot, anyone?

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
What would you think of the following radically altered voting scenario?

Once a year on the same day we hold a vote for the local assembly, with a blank ballot with nine or more lines (as per the Assembly's agreement prior to the election, but with nine being the minimum) on the ballot sheet. All persons eligible to vote would be classified as voter-candidates (i.e. every voter is a candidate by default). To vote, you write the nine (or more, according to the local assembly's agreement for that year) names on your ballot along with their voter number next to it (each person would be given a voter card with a distinct number on each, which he keeps for life). To find out the voter number of the person you intend to vote for, you could just look it up on-line. After all, it wouldn't be like a credidt card number, and would have no other use.

Unless you write the specific number of names, the ballot will be spoilt. Once everyone has voted, we add up all the names, and the nine (or more, according to local agreement) names that appear most frequently would form the membership of the new local assembly. No politiking either. That would be prohibited. So no campaign in other words. Also, to encourage minority representation, we could say that a tie goes to the visible minority candidate if their is one, otherwise we must vote again to break the tie. But with such large numbers of people, a tie would be highly unlikely.

To make it efficient, it could even all be done on a computer; you type in the names, so the counting is done automatically.

Then, nine days later, also every year, the members of the local assemblies would vote for the provincial government in the same way. And so on up the line to the federal government.

To pass a law, either five members of the assembly, or a majority, depending on which is the larger number of the two, must vote in favour of it. And any new law must be unanimously supported by all members publicly. If we end up with fewer than five members at some point in the year, owing to death, etc., then we must have a bi-election to refill the empty seats.

This would eliminate partisanship, politicking and campaings, ensure efficiency by reducing the number of legislators to nine or more at each level of government, encourage decentralization owing to the fact that local assembly members would vote for provincial governmenents that would be more responsive to their needs, and so on up the line, eliminate conflict between levels of government sinse one votes for the other anyway, bring representation down to the grassroots, and increase the chances of minorities being represented (after all, though there would be more caucasian voters, there would also be more caucasian candidates splitting the racial vote. Likewise, though there would be fewer non-caucasian voters, there would also be fewer non-caucasian candidates to split the vote).

What would you think of such a system?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dancing-loon

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
That's is Godwin. He proposed we have local and national assemblies like that. Your basically talking about anarchism.

Unless you proselytizing for: a filthy religion called Bahia that has claimed Godwin's system for themselves and propose it should be headed by a religious theocracy. Originally the maniac that started it wanted his progeny to rule the world but, luckily, the grandson chosen for that task, Harvard educated, recognized it for the evil it was and stopped it cold by not appointing a successor.

The Bahia's still want to rule the world with their god at the top (naturally).
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
How can it be Anarchist when I'm proposing a form of government?

Because you don't understand anarchism you think that is incompatible. Godwin purposed an entirely new social structure. It is propaganda that has led people to this misunderstanding. Anarchism works fine and is anything but chaos. The problem though is that it has no room for leaders (or gods) so those forces work against it.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I simpathize with Tolstoy, for instance, and have much respect for him too, but though he was an anarchist, I generally would not adopt that label for myself.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I simpathize with Tolstoy, for instance, and have much respect for him too, but though he was an anarchist, I generally would not adopt that label for myself.

There were and are many anarchists; unfortunately only a tiny handful that understand it. Most are disenfranchised WTO brats or worse (gasp) religionists! - they're not really anarchists but they have added a whole new level of confusion to the subject.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Because you don't understand anarchism you think that is incompatible. Godwin purposed an entirely new social structure. It is propaganda that has led people to this misunderstanding. Anarchism works fine and is anything but chaos. The problem though is that it has no room for leaders (or gods) so those forces work against it.

Can you provide me an example where anarchism works fine in modern society.

Just curious.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I'm aware of short-lived anarcho-syndicalism in the Basque, but as soon as Spanish fascism raised its ugly head, it all came tumbling down. It would seem that anarchism is week in the face of neighbouring militarism.
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
I still don't get how I'm an anarchist if I'm proposing a form of government. I thought anarchists were opposed to all forms of government by definition.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
Looking a the history of our democracy compared to what went on in Spain I think anarchism didn't work fine at all.

I'll take democracy and capitalism....thanks anyways.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I still don't get how I'm an anarchist if I'm proposing a form of government. I thought anarchists were opposed to all forms of government by definition.

That is a common misconception. Anarchism is society without leadership where social norms, contract and liberty are upheld and there are no dictates. People own themselves and crimes against them (violation of liberty, contract or social norms) are paid to them. It is the responsibility of the criminal to make restitutions to the victim so that liberty and dignity are fully restored. There is no state which can claim damages. There can be judges and assemblies to make decisions for the group or be the arbiter of disputes. Local assemblies can appeal to a national assembly for disputes that might arise between them. Also the national assembly decides on matters pertaining to the entire group. It is anything but chaos. The problem though is that being wealthy while someone starves can be a clear violation of liberty and the wealthy rely on it not being which is why it is so vehemently opposed by government and the other elite.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
Looking a the history of our democracy compared to what went on in Spain I think anarchism didn't work fine at all.

I'll take democracy and capitalism....thanks anyways.

Oh well then, that changes everything :roll:
 

Machjo

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 19, 2004
17,878
61
48
Ottawa, ON
So I take it you're an anarchist yourself then?

But as for all you've mentioned there, that goes way beyond my first post in thie thread. I never mentioned anything beyond restructuring the electoral system. And in the system I proposed, there would still be leadership. And there would still be a state. So there are some differences.

As for wealth and poverty, while I'm fully in agreement with eliminating the extremes of wealth and poverty, I don't believe that we could ever eliminate wealth and poverty altogether, nor ought we to try. Moderation is key.

Would this still be considered anarchist?
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
I still don't get how I'm an anarchist if I'm proposing a form of government. I thought anarchists were opposed to all forms of government by definition.

It's a tricky subject. I'm not sure why exactly but it causes a lot of confusion for people. Even Noam Chomsky has trouble with it 8O

I think it's because they don't read. It's easier to make a few snap judgements based on a web site than look into the subject (ask Avro).

I'm not defending anarchism. It is a great system but people are too stupid for it. I know that.

Because people are so stupid it cannot work. The Bahia version might because it is headed by a sky god but it is a gross violation and evil.
 

Scott Free

House Member
May 9, 2007
3,893
46
48
BC
So I take it you're an anarchist yourself then?

Yes I am.

But as for all you've mentioned there, that goes way beyond my first post in thie thread. I never mentioned anything beyond restructuring the electoral system. And in the system I proposed, there would still be leadership. And there would still be a state. So there are some differences.

Sure, whatever.

As for wealth and poverty, while I'm fully in agreement with eliminating the extremes of wealth and poverty, I don't believe that we could ever eliminate wealth and poverty altogether, nor ought we to try. Moderation is key.

Would this still be considered anarchist?

No, that's a socialist which also borrowed liberally from Godwin.