Monday, 23 September 2013

Electoral reform

With the onset of social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter, politics has become more popular than in any time in history. That's not to say that politics hasn't always been popular, but with the onset of social media, information about the governments of the world and the political subjects that they debate has become much more widely available. Online protests are commonplace in the western world and are becoming far more common in countries where the citizens have much more of a need to protest. Politicians and the people they associate with are under the microscope twenty-four-seven. It is for this reason that the ways of the old politicians are starting to become see-through.

There was a time when politicians, when running for office, would be able to be forward only about the issues that they thought would win them votes, only to go back on their promises the second they got into power. Although this practice is still used by many MPs, the Camerons and Millibands of this world, their lies and half truths no longer go unnoticed as there are millions of people with an opinion and an electronic voice with which to express it.

A few weeks ago, Australia elected a new Prime Minister amidst a flurry of faked photo opportunities, and in-house goading, and it was at this time that I started thinking that the political system as it is has surely run its course. I started thinking as to how a modern political system could work in a modern world where everybody is connected online, and I came up with the following.

First and foremost, those very high up in the political structure would be replaced by a team of administration personnel, and analysts from all social, economic and legal fields. The analysts would be required to debate which new laws should be proposed, and which old laws should be revised or simply scrapped. They would themselves be able to propose new laws, but many of the laws would come from public pressure in the same way that online petitions can currently be presented in parliament. However, this group of people would not have the power to actually pass any of these laws, only to propose a vote by the public.

A new law that the analysts are proposing would be made public for anybody to read, and a date on which the public would vote will be set. At this time, the local councils take over. A local debate would be held whereby representatives from each political party would be required to explain the proposed legal changes to the people living in their constituency. Each of the representatives would take it in turns to read their speech and explain what impact the change would have to the people within the constituency. Then, once all of the representatives have had their say, they will be given a right of reply, and allowed to answer any direct questions from members of the public that are in attendance. Once all is said and done, the public in attendance would be given a certain amount of time to ponder the issue, and then to vote not for a specific party, but a simple yes or no based on the information that has been provided to them during the debate. There would also be the option to cast a vote of revision whereby the law would be reproposed with amendments suggested by the public.

As an example, let's say that the analysts propose the legalisation of class A drugs countrywide. Some of the topics up for debate may include the health cost of making drugs widely available, the tax levy on the drugs and what that would bring to the economy, and the lower crime rate expected if the drugs were made legal. If 90% of the public were to vote no, then the law would not be passed, and the drugs would stay illegal. If 70% of the public were to vote yes, the law would be passed, and drugs would be decriminalised. If the vote were as close as 60-40, then the law would go back to the analysts as a reproposal as the country cannot decide for definite either way.

Key to this would be that only those in attendance of the debates would be able to vote on any given law as they are deemed to be the only ones with all of the facts. For national debates, the debates could be held online, but would require some advanced security to make sure there is no fiddling of the figures and people are really who they say they are when they login.

Once all of the votes have been counted, the analyst/administration team would pass the law or not, depending on the outcome of the vote.

What do you think? Democracy in action, or the ramblings of a political idiot? Leave your comments below

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please leave a comment!