Direct Democracy

[Huron]

I'm wondering what people think about the feasibility of direct democracy in Canada.

It's arguable that 'representative democracy' in its current form does not work in the interests of citizens or the nation as a whole. Some of the fixes, e.g., PR, proposed to the system may have slightly improved the situation had these been implemented thirty years ago. However, current technology enables us to move beyond band-aid fixes to the implementation of truly democratic processes.

Direct democracy places government decision making processes in the hands of the citizens who support the nation.

What do you think?

Information concerning direct democracy is available at Direct Democracy Canada.

:idea:

 

[Reverend Blair]

I voted yes, but I have some serious reservations about it.

1. How, in a direct democracy do you protect minority rights? A representative democracy, in concert with the charter and decisions of the Supreme Court can move to do that right now, but I've seen no reasonable mechanisms in proposals for direct democracy to do the same.

2. If this is dependent on technology, how do you ensure that everybody has access to the technology? Poor people are less likely to have computers and internet connections, they are also less likely to be able to travel to locations where the technology is available publicly.

3. Does the average person have the time and information to make decisions on complex issues? We have a media that spins everything , so we can't depend on them to inform the public.

Politicians have access to experts and research staff. They have the time to study complex issues. The average person does not have access to that.

 

[scott malcolm]

The two main elements of Swiss Direct Democracy are Citizen Initiated Referendum and Brake Referendum.

Citizen Initiated Referendum: A citizen may initiate a referendum by signed petition comprising no less than 100,000 votes collected in less than 18 months.

Brake Referendum: Fifty thousand citizens can request a law be put to popular vote if the signatures are collected within 100 days of publication of a decree proclaiming said law.

http://www.iniref.org/swissdemocracy.html

1. How, in a direct democracy do you protect minority rights? A representative democracy, in concert with the charter and decisions of the Supreme Court can move to do that right now, but I've seen no reasonable mechanisms in proposals for direct democracy to do the same.

In Canada we protect minority rights beyond the whim of our legislative body with our Charter of Rights and our judiciary. Other countries have founding documents, constitutions and judges too. A role of the judiciary in a democratic state is to apply the law with consideration for how those laws interact with the other laws and the pertinent governing documents of the Country.

Citizen Initiated Referendums do not threaten the necessary interpretive environment of the judiciary.

Brake referendum slows the inclusion of new rights while it restrains the legislative body from radical inclinations. People hate changes. Nimbys.

Switzerland has had a direct democracy for over 150 years and we have yet to see "majority" attacks on minority rights. Albeit they are the slowest to grant new rights. Women got the vote in 1981. It is extremely conservative and not prone to instability which accounts for the strength of its banking system.

2. If this is dependent on technology, how do you ensure that everybody has access to the technology? Poor people are less likely to have computers and internet connections, they are also less likely to be able to travel to locations where the technology is available publicly.

Technology is not a concern for the Swiss democratic system and it runs on a variety of physical platforms well before an IBM.

Though I campaign for the superimposition of direct democracy(http://etches.net) onto the representative democratic system by making it a representative initiative. No Constitution limits who the representative can choose to seek advice from and what method he or she uses to collect that polling information. In my scenario a representative holds ongoing riding referendums on as many issues as feasible.

I use a telephone-like banking system which injects registered constituent responses into a vertical entry database with access from touch tone phones, desktops and mobile devices.

I have rarely found anyone who did not have access to a touch tone phone.

They can write me if they like.

3. Does the average person have the time and information to make decisions on complex issues? We have a media that spins everything , so we can't depend on them to inform the public.

The way around media domination is communication over distributed networks.

Politicians have access to experts and research staff. They have the time to study complex issues. The average person does not have access to that.

The community knowledge base is far greater than the knowledge base of a few advisors appointed because of their biases. With good interactive information dissemination practices a community could bring to the table very diverse perspectives necessary for making well rounded decisions.

Scott

 

[Paco]

Ben Franklin had this to say about democracy, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.”

In the state of Colorado, they have voter initiated referendums. Just recently, the majority of the people decided it would be a good idea to steal money from the minority by placing a new 300% increase of tax on tobacco products. A capable example of Franklin’s warning.

In Canada we protect minority rights beyond the whim of our legislative body with our Charter of Rights and our judiciary.

You will not be able to protect the rights of minorities when the people start to change laws. Your Charter of Rights and judiciary will be required to apply law according to any new proposals voted for by the majority.

Citizen Initiated Referendums do not threaten the necessary interpretive environment of the judiciary.

They certainly will. Citizen Initiated Referendums will change the laws and in turn change the interpretations of the judiciary.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Hi Scott...glad you made it over here.

1. Referendums are expensive and often divisive. 100,000 people is not a lot. Would we be holding referenda to change Stockwell's name to Doris every second week?

While this model is working in Switzerland, Switzerland is not Canada. It was a fairly homogenous society when they adopted this model, and they have been, by your own appraisal, very slow to change.

I'm pushing for the voting age to be lowered to sixteen so I'm not to enthralled at adopting a system that took until 1981 to allow women vote.

I'm also not at all convinced that there wouldn't be an attack on minority rights. There is little doubt that the same sex marriage issue would be pushed to a referendum. If seen several people suggest that we should ban Muslim immigration to Canada. I've seen one person suggest that all Muslims be put into camps like we did with the Japanese. I've seen suggestions for mandatory prayer in school, for evolution not being taught, and for us to "return" to basing our society on Christianity.

Now I doubt any of those things would win in a referendum, but I also have no doubt that their proponents could gather 100,000 citizens and start some very divisive campaigns. We would end up paying for it out of our tax money.

2. Most direct democracy models I see promoted are very much based on the use of the internet. I'm glad you've addressed that somewhat because the response I usually get is, "We'll put computers in malls."

We have an increasing number of people in this province that don't have telephones though. There were always some, but it's been steadily increasing since Filmon privatized MTS.

There is also the fact that a lot of older people who, though they may have access to the technology, will not use it for voting or banking etc.

3. I'm not sure what form distributed networks would take at this point. Two things are likely to happen with that though...the media are going to scream bloody murder because such networks are not in their best interest, and we're going to have to pay for them. I sincerely doubt that such a system could be put in place with the spin and screaming that's going to come out of the private sector on that.

 

[Huron]

It should be recognized that some of the concerns/examples expressed are as applicable to the current representational system as each could be to a direct democracy system.

For example, representative governments have a particular affection for 'sin taxes' and have certainly shown no qualms about raising these on items such as liquor, cigarettes, etc. through the years. Really no different than the Colorado example.

The Ontario McGuinty government is planning on enacting legislation that bans smoking province wide in all 'public' places, e.g., bars, restaurants, etc., in 2006.

Any representative government has the ability to enact legislation and enter into agreements that are completely contrary to the majority view, e.g., missile defense treaties.

Regarding:

I've seen suggestions for mandatory prayer in school, for evolution not being taught, and for us to "return" to basing our society on Christianity.

I'd be more concerned about this with a Harper government than I would in a direct democracy environment.

Basic human and minority rights would, as is the case now, be protected in a Constitution that would not be subject to change on whim or whichever way the wind is blowing in a given week, e.g., constitutional change could require a 75% majority. So, there would be no possibility of any group be 'rounded up into camps', or at least, no more so than is the case now.

The cost of creating an initiative could be the responsibility of those organizing the same. Adding whatever question was raised to a, say, bi-yearly referendum would not be particularly costly.

In terms of some specific issues mentioned, I have much more confidence in the overall citizenry making the 'just' decision on most matters than I do for many of our representatives.

There is are number of options available to be utilized in disseminating information and obtaining voter feedback. These can be used in whatever combination is necessary to achieve the desired results. If promoting a true democracy in Canada means everyone needs a telephone, internet access, etc., then everyone will get these and any cost in doing so will be money well spent.

We've started adding content to the Direct Democracy Canada site to address some of the DD concerns/issues raised in this thread thusfar and I'm sure probably addressed in greater detail on Scott's site.

I'd just like to note that many of the 'founding fathers' were, like Ben, somewhat dubious about democracy in general and numerous nifty quotes which outline their beliefs in this regard. However, there is no reason to believe they were correct in this regard.

 

[Just the Facts]

I voted yes because the question is "move towards" rather than "implement immediately".

I think most social issues that have been brought up can be addressed: technology can be made available; there are always uninformed voters, nothing new there; minority rights are protected by the will of the majority in any scenario, I don't think that would be threatened by direct democracy; referendum petition numbers can always be raised if 100,000 is too trivial; etc.

I think DD can work well as a complement to our current system...i.e. constituent opinions can be gathered electronically and published publicly so we know if an MP is actually representing the majority of their electorate.

My biggest concern about DD and one that would be a deal breaker for me supporting it until there's a solution is the side effect of it commoditizing (new word :wink: ) votes. There would need to be a system that prevents people from being able to sell their vote to the highest bidder.

 

[Huron]

My biggest concern about DD and one that would be a deal breaker for me supporting it until there's a solution is the side effect of it commoditizing (new word Wink ) votes. There would need to be a system that prevents people from being able to sell their vote to the highest bidder.

I agree. However, doesn't this happen now to some extent? Party platforms are often full of goodies, e.g., tax cuts, benefit increases, etc.

minority rights are protected by the will of the majority in any scenario

In terms of 'minorities' it is important to have safeguards in place which prevent the majority from oppressing an identifiable, e.g., language, race, sexual orientation, religion, left-handed, etc., minority.

As concerns specific issues, one can anticipate the majority to generally be considerate of the minority view, if only because no one will always be in the majority and most will want their views respected, or at least considered, when in the minority.

In terms of minority rights, it should be noted that these relate to the prevention of oppression by the majority, not any perceived 'right' of the minority to force their particular views on the majority or any obligation on the part of the majority to revise their own values and interests to accord to the minority view.

Neither a tyranny of the majority or a tyranny of the minority are desirable in a democracy.

:wink:

 

[Reverend Blair]

I had a quick look a the Direct Democracy Canada site and will check it out for real later on. I'm happy to say that I recognised a few names there though.

My biggest concern about DD and one that would be a deal breaker for me supporting it until there's a solution is the side effect of it commoditizing (new word Wink ) votes. There would need to be a system that prevents people from being able to sell their vote to the highest bidder.

That happens now though...just say "tax cuts" and you'll draw a certain number of voters no matter what the real cost. It is basically buying votes.

I'd be more concerned about this with a Harper government than I would in a direct democracy environment.

Me too, except that certain groups are very good at petitioning the government and the public at large. I'm not sure there would be a difference there at all.

Basic human and minority rights would, as is the case now, be protected in a Constitution that would not be subject to change on whim or whichever way the wind is blowing in a given week, e.g., constitutional change could require a 75% majority.

Would that include invoking the notwithstanding clause though? That can be used to over-ride the constitution, but is really a constitutional change.

In terms of some specific issues mentioned, I have much more confidence in the overall citizenry making the 'just' decision on most matters than I do for many of our representatives.

I'm not sure I agree with you on that. If we can get proportional representation in, our MPs will be much more likely to listen to us.

My concern is more that every special interest group will be demanding a referendum on various issues though. The costs of defeating could be enormous. We would also need a mechanism that kept us from voting on the same thing over and over again, but that still allowed us to change our minds later.

There is are number of options available to be utilized in disseminating information and obtaining voter feedback. These can be used in whatever combination is necessary to achieve the desired results. If promoting a true democracy in Canada means everyone needs a telephone, internet access, etc., then everyone will get these and any cost in doing so will be money well spent.

I think we should have that now and I have nothing against the idea. I just don't think you'll be able to push it by the corporatists who know the price of everything and the value of nothing. Any compromise is likely to disenfranchise a large part of the electorate though...those that already the most vulnerable.

 

[Just the Facts]

I agree. However, doesn't this happen now to some extent? Party platforms are often full of goodies, e.g., tax cuts, benefit increases, etc.

That happens now though...just say "tax cuts" and you'll draw a certain number of voters no matter what the real cost. It is basically buying votes.

I don't mean buying support, I mean buying votes literally. Hey buddy, heres $20 for your smartcard, or I'll give 50 bucks for your user name and password.

People with resources would be able to stockpile votes, completely blowing away the one man one vote ideal.

 

[Reverend Blair]

I understand your point, but fail to see a significant difference. At least if they get caught buying votes, there's a chance they will be caught and prosecuted. No such option is available if they are doing legally through promises of tax cuts.

 

[Just the Facts]

Re: RE: Direct Democracy

I understand your point, but fail to see a significant difference.

There's a big difference. If you choose to vote for someone based on their promises, that's not only your democratic right, but it's what's supposed to happen. If I like what you're saying, I'm gonna vote for you, bottom line. Whether or not you're telling the truth is another matter.

The idea behind DD as I understand it, however, is to make the process more granular. So I won't really be deciding whether to vote for Stephen or Paul, but I'll be voting whether Clarkson gets the boot or not, or whether to send DART to Indonesia, or what the Drinking Age should be, or whether smoking should be banned, pot legal, etc. etc.

 

[Huron]

This isn't in reference to any comments in the thread. I'd just like to clarify that I'm not interested in 'selling' DD to anyone. Just want to put it on the table for consideration.

I originally came to DD from the perspective that it could offer the only realistic possibility of maintaining Canada as a nation, or at least one in which most of us would want to live, as our 'representatives' have over the past forty years shown little inclination to do so.

Since then, I've come to see it as having the potential to offer much more.

I just don't think you'll be able to push it by the corporatists who know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Do you think most Canadians support 'corporatists'? I don't. I tend to think that given the choice, the majority of Canadians may make decisions that won't sit well with those who'd have us accept the 'inevitability' of globalization. I think many Canadians, along with citizens of other nations, have come, or are coming, to realize they've been sold a bill of goods for many years by those who wield the economic power in their society.

Me too, except that certain groups are very good at petitioning the government and the public at large. I'm not sure there would be a difference there at all.

True. However, if you'll recall there was quite a push by business in this nation to get us into Iraq, so as to protect trade with our southern cousins at the cost of a few young Canadian lives. That push wasn't successful with citizens. If it had been, I think the federal government may have adjusted it's stance re: involvement in Iraq.

I don't think people are as easily manipulated as some tend to believe.

I'm not sure I agree with you on that. If we can get proportional representation in, our MPs will be much more likely to listen to us.

That's a big if. I'm afraid I don't share the confidence of others in believing PR, if it does ever come, would deliver the goods, or for that matter end up being much more than, well, 'PR'. PR might have been a useful enhancement when nothing better was achievable however, it now is.

My concern is more that every special interest group will be demanding a referendum on various issues though. The costs of defeating could be enormous. We would also need a mechanism that kept us from voting on the same thing over and over again, but that still allowed us to change our minds later.

And, like the other concerns expressed, quite legitimate.

However, with time, discussion and agreement, this and other concerns can be addressed.

I don't mean buying support, I mean buying votes literally. Hey buddy, heres $20 for your smartcard, or I'll give 50 bucks for your user name and password.

Another legitimate concern, and one that would need to be addressed in legislation.

However, it should also be noted that the logistics and cost involved in orchestrating the acquisition of enough votes to sway an issue would be enormous. As 'bought' decisions could be later changed by citizens, there might in fact be no long term guaranteed payoff from buying votes.

It would be a lot easier to 'buy' a decision in the current system than in a DD system, as there are fewer who need to be paid off.

 

[scott malcolm]

Paco

Just recently, the majority of the people decided it would be a good idea to steal money from the minority by placing a new 300% increase of tax on tobacco products.

Raising the tax on cigarette packs to "84" cents per pack to dedicate partial revenues to fund tobacco prevention programs and other health-related programs is hardly considered to be selective encroachment of the majority onto minority rights when we have "representative systems" that charge upwards to 5.00 dollars a pack in Canada. So that is not indicative of a "direct democratic system" that would "encroach" on those particular rights. In fact you may find that representatives tend to selectively rally people to causes against marginalized groups to consolidate support. We keep electing one horse candidates. We elect a Bush on family values and get the whole package on Iraq. So one must consider if we have democracy at all when we are not specifically voting on any issue at all but on a emotionally solicited reaction to one or more issues out of many that a candidate may forward once he has profiled the constituent demographic. Though specifically in the case of smoking we have a majority being infringed on by a minority and now there is across the board reaction by representative and direct democratic systems to make corrective measures. The previous twenty cents a pack in Colorado does not reflect the social costs of smoking. That has not even been fully corrected. The Rhode Island "representative system" Legislature increased the state tax to $1.00 which is 16 cents more than that of Colorado. New York State "representative system" lawmakers brought the tax price to $1.50 per pack or 66 cents more than the increases seen in the Colorado "direct democratic" process. "Representative system" lawmakers in Maine went for 16 cents per pack more than Colorado.

So why is addressing the social costs of smoking indicative of direct democracy? This is a social corrective measure to recoup charges from specific "behaviors" that have adverse effects on the community as a whole. We are not just talking about minority rights when the society as a whole has to pay for the choices that are made by that minority.

You will not be able to protect the rights of minorities when the people start to change laws. Your Charter of Rights and judiciary will be required to apply law according to any new proposals voted for by the majority.

I'm guessing you are from the States. We can use the Constitution for an example of the hierarchy of legislation. A law is written and passed by Congress then signed into law by the President before it is applied. Once applied it can be challenged by individuals or groups in the court process. If it is deemed unconstitutional it is struck down. That's what we do in Canada too. This is the balance of power. The House of Represntatives was to reflect the people opinions rather than a complex judicial review. The prudent judicial review was for the Judiciary.

Our Charter of Rights and judiciary will be required to apply law according to any new legislation only insofar as they do not conflict with our Charter of Rights. If a law is in conflict in Canada the Charter is paramount much like the Constitution is in the US.

They certainly will. Citizen Initiated Referendums will change the laws and in turn change the interpretations of the judiciary.

Any member of Parliament can bring an initiative forward. You have not explained how the interpretive body of the judiciary is differentiated in the two systems of direct vs. representative systems. The same safe guards of a judiciary is still in place in a direct democracy environment as in a representative one.

There are no safegaurds against stupid proposals in either system. There are the same safegaurds against applying them. Though in a solely "representative system" a representative can committ a country to war when 87% are opposed to the endevour as demonstrated by Blair without any recourse by the general population. So why is it better to have the decision making process solely dependent on the discretion of a few or one person who is easier to manipulate than the population as a whole?

I would go as far as to say that it was the Conservatives here in Canada who began to talk of changing the Charter of Rights in Canada. More than likely they lost because of that very thing. It was a one horse issue that led many people to vote for a scandal ridden party instead.

I suggest that you have only brought to light the same concerns that are reflected in the representative system and unlike the direct democratic system have been demonstrably much easier to abuse.

 

[scott malcolm]

People with resources would be able to stockpile votes, completely blowing away the one man one vote ideal.

They do that in a representative system more effectively. As all the votes are concentrated into one individual who is subject to manipulation. In fact the party system demands a concentration of the vote to the investors of the party. A party needs capital to get elected and they seek investors who contribute to their campaigns. If the representatives do not return a benefit to the investment community then they will no longer receive funds to win future elections. Currently the representative system runs on buying votes of our representatives.

Though we should further address this concern by clarifying that there is a difference between direct democracy and "electronic democracy".

Direct democracy means that the people have a role in the decision making process and does not specify how the ballots are generated and processed.

In fact the Swiss and particularly the company( http://www.swissvs.org/ ) involved in forwarding e-democracy have gone the other way. This is an email solicitation I have recently received from SwissVS.

Dear Mr. Etches,

Quote from your web site:-

How to make electronic voting work for Democracy now? It is a simple matter of having the voting machines configured to print out a receipt of the vote. The voter then can drop the vote confirmation into a locked box. If the candidate who loses contests the ballot then it is a matter of hand tabulating the confirmed votes.

Good old-fashioned common-sense, you are correct, but why bother with the machine at all?

If you see how the Swiss run their elections, a machine is totally not
needed to provide quick and trustworthy election results. Check out our
website:- http://www.swissvs.org

Not only can our system provide trustworthy results every time, but at a cost that is dramatically less. Need a demo? Need further proof? Contact us in 2005 and lets bring back trustworthiness to Democracy in the US.

So again let's clarify our terms and understand that you can have a direct democracy without introducing electronic democracratic practices. Though in my particular case as a potential representative it is prohibitively expensive to hand tabulate the results of an ongoing series of representative held referendums.

My hybrid involves electronic "direct access democracy"( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_Access_Democracy ). In this it is still more expensive to buy 51% of the vote from the general population than it is to buy the one vote of a representative or invest in a party. Though the scrutinization process I use eliminates the overall effectiveness of vote buying as each voter is potentially subject to confirmation of his vote in the scrutinization process.

 

[scott malcolm]

Reverend Blair

1. Referendums are expensive and often divisive. 100,000 people is not a lot.

The bar set in Switzerland to reflect their population is not binding on Canada and I myself am interested more in percentages of populations participating.

Would we be holding referenda to change Stockwell's name to Doris every second week?

Not if we set the bar of participation to the proper height. I do not believe that the population is so casual about governance.

The Rhino party hardly made a footnote.

While this model is working in Switzerland, Switzerland is not Canada. It was a fairly homogenous society when they adopted this model, and they have been, by your own appraisal, very slow to change.

They actually were are an ethnically divided country fresh out of a bloody civil war between the three main groups and they choose Direct Democracy to ensure that the various groups had equal access to power.

I'm also not at all convinced that there wouldn't be an attack on minority rights. There is little doubt that the same sex marriage issue would be pushed to a referendum. If seen several people suggest that we should ban Muslim immigration to Canada. I've seen one person suggest that all Muslims be put into camps like we did with the Japanese. I've seen suggestions for mandatory prayer in school, for evolution not being taught, and for us to "return" to basing our society on Christianity.

I myself would find each of these issues easier to conform to my whims in the representative system rather than a direct democratic one like the Swiss employ. As currently 65 % of all Canadians favor recognition of the civil status of gay marriage.

Had Harper won the election I do not think that the issue of gay marriage would be on the legislative table. We are far more vulnerable with a "representative" Conservative government than with Citizen Initiated Referendum of Brake Referendum. With a Brake Referendum we could block any vested interest party initiative from becoming law.

One note on my hybrid is that the representative cannot be legally held to the outcome of the ballot in Canada. If a representative wished they could cast their ballot anyway they wanted in the elected assembly. The only difference here is now it is a clear and transparent process when the representative does not abide by the will of the people and is held quantifiably accountable for his ballots. Which in essence places an additional safeguard in the democratic process. Rather than an elected official merely voting to his whim we can see how the people wish him to represent them.

It is a methodolgy of measuring the representation and if the representative is not making decision based on the will of the people then how do you consider it to be "demos" cratcy?

There is also the fact that a lot of older people who, though they may have access to the technology, will not use it for voting or banking etc.

One of the things I like about my system particularly over the Swiss model is that it is run by the representative. It is localized. I know the seven seniors homes in my constituency and can have outreach to those constituents. I fully intend to have a voting station in the constituency office so it is no different than having to go to any representative polling station. No system gets all the vote. But mine gets a better saturation than Elections Canada so it is hard to hold this against it when making a comparison.

distributed networks

The internet is a distributed network .

 

[scott malcolm]

Huron

Keep up the good work.

I would like you to consider the option of approaching direct democracy by way of conforming individual representatives to conduct "polling". This way we introduce the practice without any material changes to our constitution which is harder in a party dominated system.

I ran on my "representative" direct democracy platform in the last Parliamentry election and placed eleventh overall for independent candidates in Canada. People were stunned at how well it did without a large campaign budget. My cost per vote was 62 cents compared to $5.12 per vote for the liberals and $4.32 for the Conservatives. In cost per vote it is a winner but to get investment you need to be able to return a benefit.

It is hard to solicite large campaign funds from vested interests when you tell them that if elected you will prioritize the constituents over their interests.

Though an opening of the campaign coffers just may be the Green party who have indicated they are interested in adopting the principles outlined in direct democracy.

 

[Huron]

Thanks, Scott.

The DDC site is pretty new. We'll really appreciate any thoughts/content you can offer.

I haven't had the opportunity to review you site in detail, so am not entirely sure what you mean by:

approaching direct democracy by way of conforming individual representatives to conduct "polling".

I assume this involves the representative being required to poll their constituents on issues, as opposed to making whatever decision their party decrees without consulting constituents. Please correct me if my understanding is erroneous.

If I'm more or less correct, this pretty much ties into my thoughts on the matter. DD will likely require some form of 'representative' to oversee the public service and ensure citizen decisions are implemented. How these representatives are selected and on what basis is to my mind open to debate.

In the end, citizens will on a community, provincial and national basis need to agree upon how DD can best function for them.

Are you Direct Access Democracy and Direct Access Democracy Canada? Similar names, but different addresses and sites.

 

[scott malcolm]

I assume this involves the representative being required to poll their constituents on issues, as opposed to making whatever decision their party decrees without consulting constituents. Please correct me if my understanding is erroneous.

Well yes. But more specifically the process for adopting the elements of direct democracy in Canada have two approaches. Top down or bottom up. As I see it there is a slim chance that the party du jour will incorporate the populace in the decision making process if they can avoid and they have. Here in BC in the early 90's we had a referendum on whether we should have binding Citizen Initiated Referendum. At that time 83% of the votes cast were for such a binding process.

To this date we do not have binding citizen initiated referendums.

The referendum where 83% of the populace voted yes was not binding. So in this political atmosphere of disregard for the wishes of the constituents we should consider the bottom up approach. What are the elements necessary to make this happen?

1) The process must be independent of requiring Constitutional changes.

2) The process must conform to the current representational system.

So given this criteria we can easily say that a representative can conduct the processes of direct democracy without any constitutional changes and be well within his right to do so without top down permissions.

I believe this is best way to go about it.

Take it one riding at a time until there is a swing block of votes to force a constitutional amendment to include Citizen Initiated Referendum and Brake Referendums.

Running on a platform focused on changing the constitution is tricky. I stated that one of my personal goals is to see Municipalities included in the Constitution to empower them to negotiate for direct transfer payments to bypass provincial bureaucracy and was confronted with blank stares.

P.S. John Opera started the his version of direct access democracy process well after mine was already on ballot but our goals are the same. We aren't arguing over territory and both see the end goal but different approaches to it.

 

[Huron]

Thanks for the clarification.

I fully agree with your approach.

I think we need to pursue a number of strategies, all aimed towards the initial goal of getting DD into the Canadian consciousness as a viable alternative to, or evolution of, the quasi-oligarchy historically presented as democracy in Canada and other nations.

Your experience in this area is obviously far more extensive than my own, so you've doubtless heard the same 'why DD can't work' views on numerous occasions.

As we both know, there's little or no evidence to back up any of these views, beyond a few tired quotations from long dead historic figures, and, as you've indicated in this thread, the majority of concerns expressed are, at the least, equally true for the representative model.

The DDC focus is on getting DD into the public mind to the greatest extent possible and address the concerns that will inevitably be expressed.

Having googled about a bit, I've become aware others have been at this for years and we've yet to see much direct democracy in Canada. So, I'm not under any illusions as the ease of the task at hand.

What we'd like to do at DDC is initiate and coordinate an effort to have numerous candidates throughout the nation running on DD platforms at the municipal level. If nothing else, this will start getting DD into the public mind on a national level.