Political Poll

[c9]

Situation: You wake up, grab your coffee, sit at the computer. Up comes the www.vote.gc.ca website. You punch in an ID number, and then vote on a dozen little issues such as "should your children be taught in both English and French equally?" "should the city repave Mill Street or build a new bike path?" or "Do you want a $100 tax cut in 2006, or should that money go to building 31,000 new affordable homes nationwide?"

a) Is this something you like the sounds of? (separate from technical concerns or privacy concerns, assume those are dealt with)

b) Would you vote every day?

Comments

[iambic-cub.livejournal.com]

Of course, since there is a handy-dandy ID, over the period of a couple of years, by asking the right questions, they can build up a fairly accurate psych profile of you which, of course, could be sold to Montreal advertising firms who would use it to target you with ads and products you are psychologically unable to resist. I know you said "separate from technical concerns or privacy concerns, assume those are dealt with", but really, this is politicians. Of course they're going to sell it. Just hope it goes into the public purse and not their pockets.

But yes, it would be fun to have a more active role in the political process and sometimes pretend my opinion matters.

[skaughty.livejournal.com]

Are you suggesting that those globeandmail.com polls that I fill out every once in a while don't directly translate into the government's public policy?

But seriously, I've contemplated online voting myself. Once a day might be pushing it, but once every month could be managed. I think the system would also have to incorporate a form of 'awareness test' before a user could actually vote on a specific issue. For example, I don't think that joe blow citizen should be able to directly vote for a tax cut at the expense of social housing if he/she is unable to demonstrate knowledge of how their decision will impact others. Yes, I'm aware that I'm essentially proposing a rather draconian 'you must be at least this smart to vote' system, but without such a safeguard, the risk of having uniformed decisions made without accountability is all too real.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Canadian citizens can vote without any such test. Worse, MPs can be elected, then vote bindingly, without any such test. So you're proposing a major change to every aspect of decision-making in the country. :)

I like the idea of awareness, but it's an interesting discussion to have. Do we have the right to force people to learn relevant information before voting on something?

[skaughty.livejournal.com]

You're right on the money with respect to our current voting system. In theory, accountability does eventually come into play when an elected official seeks re-election and undergoes public scrutiny. But do I believe that we need that major change in how we treat decision-making, be it though either direct or respresentational democracy? Indeed I do... (do I expect, it to happen? not really)

I think you make a good point as to whether there can be a collective right that would keep an individual from voting if s/he weren't knowledgeable on an issue. But then again, should I, as an individual, be subject to decisions born out of ignorance just because someone feels that it's their right to vote, irregardless of their incompetence?

An example: Suppose that the electorate were asked to vote on whether religious groups should continue to benefit from tax exemptions. In voting on this issue, I would be violating my civic duties if I weren't to take the time to weigh how my decision would impact fellow citizens. Should I, as an agnostic, not have to ensure that I take into consideration the many social services that these groups deliver to members of my community. While I may not agree with their programs (e.g. Covenant House in Toronto who provides desperately needed services to street youth in exchange for a very healthy dose of god), should I simply be able to vote to cripple their ability to operate based only on my own personal dislike of some organized religions without having exhibited at least a degree of consideration for the wider implications of my decision? Hopefully not...

[c9.livejournal.com]

Ahh, now that example is something else indeed. You *are* properly informed on that issue. So it comes down to:

1. Should you be allowed to vote down support despite the detrimental effect it will have on society in general?
2. Should someone else be allowed to vote down support because they don't *know* the detrimental effect it will have on society in general?

As for the "decisions born out of ignorance" angle: some might say your civic responsibility is to educate your neighbours about the issues, to lobby for the outcome you prefer.

Finally: equal education does not mean similar opinions. What happens when everybody knows the same facts, but still votes against what you want?

[skaughty.livejournal.com]

Answer to #1: If you can 'demonstrate' that you are aware of these consequences, then yes. (of course, hindsight is 20/20, so it is impossible to know the real consequences until well after the fact).
Answer to #2: In an ideal world, no. But I've been looking around, and much to my chagrin it doesn't appear to be ideal. :/

Decisions born out of ignorance: enlightened debate is, I think, the ideal for which we strive; with that in place, and with every voter partaking, direct eDemocracy is theoretically achievable.

Education vs. opinion: then you are in the minority, and become subject to the realities of democratic rule; perhaps the biggest problem with this model is not having a political figure-head on which to pin your discontent; then there's always the issue of 'unequal' education: not everyone has the same access to educational opportunities; if an 'awareness test' were applied, how could it be administered in a fair and un-heavy-handed manner so as to accommodate the full spectrum of informational abilities?

oy-veh

[halimattfax.livejournal.com]

Hi there. I’ve got a few random thoughts on this…

- I don’t think most people would be willing to put in the effort to vote daily in an informed manner. You probably wouldn’t get a good representation of the public. It could still be done, you’d just have to watch what issues you put up to vote.
- Some issues should not be resolved by a public vote – for many of the reasons already mentioned (people are stupid and we need to be protected from ourselves).
- When the issue is right to be voted on, it could be a great way to get more people involved (more of the population represented). However you might also want to consider if it creates an imbalance of power. Is one group more likely to have access to online voting?

So I guess I didn’t really answer your questions but I wanted to put in my two cents. :)

Oh, and I probably wouldn’t vote everyday.

Thanks.

-Matt

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

I think that would be a horrible system. First, although you've built it in to the question, I can't really presume that privacy and technical concerns are taken care of. But most importantly, it is too democratic for my tastes. I like the feel of democracy as a big movement, but not for minutia.

As for the second question, I would vote obsessively. I may have to quit my day job.

[ex-halfwitte432.livejournal.com]

Student union elections at UW are online. Turnout is something like 10-14% dependent on year.

t

[c9.livejournal.com]

UNB's been like that for years already. But that's different: once or twice a year. VOting daily or weekly would create a much different dynamic, I think.

[simplisticton.livejournal.com]

Average turnout for a general election is about 25% (electronically), up from about 8% for the last paper ballot. Of course, the electronic system contribues somewhat to voter disenfranchisement, because it's moderately more difficult to handle provisional ballots in the electronic system (it's not impossible, but trickier).

[simplisticton.livejournal.com]

I don't think you can govern effectively by referendum. Many issues of governance are complex enough that average citizens can't be expected to know what's best for society as a whole, or even for themselves in the moderate long run. Governing bodies can elicit expert testimony and advice from the best minds in their countr(ies), whereas the people have significantly more limited resources (some more limited than others). Evidence of this? The effectiveness of the Bush Machine. They create reailty and the populace respond to it.

Example: in the late 90's, more than half of Americans were in favour of Social Security privatization (because of the booming stock market and the perceived probability of getting rich on the market). Today, that number is considerably lower. Public perception changes quickly, but large government programmes can't be modified on a whim (unless you're the Bush Machine, but that's another post).

There's also the huge social divide between those who use the Internet religiously (us) and the many who don't . Replace "computer" with "TV" or "phone" and you might get a better societal cross-section, but then I doubt you'd get the results you want.

And I wouldn't want to be on the committee who has to phrase the questions. That in itself could become a position where power could be abused quite easily. Look at how much power pollsters wield just by the phrasing of seemingly innocuous questions.

Ah, whatever, I'm working on limited sleep and caffeine. I probably don't make any sense.