This is a conversation I had with a local politician over the course of several e-mails. The conversation began by me sending them a link to my Utopian Democracy essay, their first response was in the form of a number of points regarding the essay which lead the discussion. Sadly it does not read as well as it might, firstly as I am useless with computers I have had formatting issues as you shall see, and secondly due to the varying chronology of the piece. The ten original points have been numbered and the replies tend to be chronological between the numbers. Hopefully it is still interesting to hear the critique of a sensible and relevant person and useful to have some of the less clear aspects of the essay in question expanded upon. While I often related other essays in my writing I imagine this particular piece won't make much sense without having read Utopian Democracy.
1.
Them: I share some, but not necessarily all, of the views expressed in your essay. My doubts lie more in the practical aspects of applying your proposals. I have made a few relatively random comments below about them.
Me: In general I agree with this sentiment, much like any building or machine – the design takes far fewer man hours than the construction which is the real work load. All of my views are end game ones in that I think we should aim towards them with gradual change rather than up-heave the present system and try to adopt a completely new one.
Me: In general I agree with this sentiment, much like any building or machine – the design takes far fewer man hours than the construction which is the real work load. All of my views are end game ones in that I think we should aim towards them with gradual change rather than up-heave the present system and try to adopt a completely new one.
Them: Noted. I think this is both sensible and practical.
2.
Them: With regard to voting electronically, I think there is a long way to go before this can be achieved without the risk of disenfranchising an element of the population. If people are allowed to vote electronically, measures need to be in place to cater for people who are unable to cope with this. It is not just a generational thing.
Me: This is an excellent point I had not given enough thought to as I had assumed a primarily generational thing and by the time it had become widespread there would be less need of such provisions. With slow enough movement towards these ends I envisage education catering for this inability in society. If electronic voting were implemented faster however we already have infrastructure in place. ATMs could potentially be programmed to cope or similar machines could be placed in post offices / libraries to cater for those without internet or who need assistance with the technology. Is there any specific demographics you have in mind other than the elderly who are generally less competent with computers?
Them: With regard to voting electronically, I think there is a long way to go before this can be achieved without the risk of disenfranchising an element of the population. If people are allowed to vote electronically, measures need to be in place to cater for people who are unable to cope with this. It is not just a generational thing.
Me: This is an excellent point I had not given enough thought to as I had assumed a primarily generational thing and by the time it had become widespread there would be less need of such provisions. With slow enough movement towards these ends I envisage education catering for this inability in society. If electronic voting were implemented faster however we already have infrastructure in place. ATMs could potentially be programmed to cope or similar machines could be placed in post offices / libraries to cater for those without internet or who need assistance with the technology. Is there any specific demographics you have in mind other than the elderly who are generally less competent with computers?
Them: There are always likely to be certain people who, for one reason or another, cannot be accommodated by a system installed that suits the majority. Looking at your suggestion above, it would not be suitable for people with mobility problems who were not computer literate. I accept that in the long term the number of people lacking computer literacy should reduce.
3.
Them: I was once opposed to proportional representation, on the grounds that
it could give too much power to minority political parties. I now
accept that these days all parties are minority ones. If the turnout at
general elections continues its present path, a party getting 100% of
the vote could still have been elected by a minority of the electorate.
This will be even more pronounced if present plans to introduce
individual voter registration are implemented.
Me: Surely if proportional representation were perfectly in place then the correct amount of power would be in the hands of minority political parties?
Them: I was once opposed to proportional representation, on the grounds that
it could give too much power to minority political parties. I now
accept that these days all parties are minority ones. If the turnout at
general elections continues its present path, a party getting 100% of
the vote could still have been elected by a minority of the electorate.
This will be even more pronounced if present plans to introduce
individual voter registration are implemented.
Me: Surely if proportional representation were perfectly in place then the correct amount of power would be in the hands of minority political parties?
Them: I disagree here. I hope a simple example will illustrate why. Let’s assume that there are (say) just 3 parties, one of which always gets 5% of the popular vote. If the votes between the other 2 parties were to be (say) 55% against 40%, the smallest of the 3 parties would have no power. However, if the split were to be (say) 49% to 46%, then the smallest party can decide which of the two largest party to support. It then has real power – or at least more power than in scenario 1. We only have to look at the present situation in the UK to see that it can happen.
Me: Ah, I see what you mean. Yes in this case it certainly does empower the minority when the two major parties are generally opposed. It is not however relevant if votes are on single issues and not parties hence my oversight on this account.
Me still: Would you suggest a two horse race where parties are concerned, like they operate in the states, to remove this problem? It is evident that this is not a problem of proportional representation as the system we operate under now in the UK is neither proportional nor protected against minority parties having significant sway.
Me some more: The problem seem to me analogous of companies with large market share, they prevent small ones from offering much competition and are enabled to maintain high market share even with worse products/services. If we had a system of twenty parties each with 3-7% of the total vote the democratic process would be more just. The beneficial evolutionary mechanisms of capitalism break down as companies tend towards monopolies, which is what out political parties are doing thus reducing the effectiveness of democracy.
Them: I do not advocate just having two parties and not just for it being impossible to achieve it. Copying the electoral process from the USA is certainly not something I would support. I agree that having 20 parties with 3 - 7% of the vote would be more just. Getting the 20 parties would not be difficult; the problem would be getting the electorate to spread their votes equally between. I am afraid that my thinking usually comes back to the practicalities.
Me: Another note on this is that proportional representation would allow the formation of more small parties that were not as polarized as they tend to be in the present system. In an economic/consumer way of looking at it is only to the advantage of the voter to have more variation and competition among parties.
Them: Agreed.
Me: Your point about voting registration rings true and sadly also applies to the introduction of electronic systems, the only counter to which I can see is a proactive issuing of voting eligibility from state at it's expense. I certainly agree with the superficial problems that exist in having proportional representation but the inherent ones that are created by not having it are not soluble like the superficial ones, and it is for that reason I can see no other “perfect” remedy.
Them: I accept that very few things in life are ‘perfect’!
4.
Me: Your point about voting registration rings true and sadly also applies to the introduction of electronic systems, the only counter to which I can see is a proactive issuing of voting eligibility from state at it's expense. I certainly agree with the superficial problems that exist in having proportional representation but the inherent ones that are created by not having it are not soluble like the superficial ones, and it is for that reason I can see no other “perfect” remedy.
Them: I accept that very few things in life are ‘perfect’!
4.
Them:I agree with your comment about the difficulty of enforcing election manifestos. How does one define the change of circumstances that would make a failure to abide by manifesto commitments acceptable?
Me: In my utopian end game this is not an issue as there is only voting on issues and none on people or parties. In present politics the only sensible and fair solution is to allow court and jury to determine questionable cases. This I accept is a costly and tedious process but ideally would result in acting as a deterrent rather than common practice.
Them: Only time would tell on this point.
5.
Me: In my utopian end game this is not an issue as there is only voting on issues and none on people or parties. In present politics the only sensible and fair solution is to allow court and jury to determine questionable cases. This I accept is a costly and tedious process but ideally would result in acting as a deterrent rather than common practice.
Them: Only time would tell on this point.
5.
Them: There are, I can assure you, still some straight talking and honest
politicians around, particularly at a local level. I am married to
one!
Me: Yes, that I could tell! I intend no offence to any individuals, speaking in general is a dangerous thing to do when people are concerned. I may have perhaps been more accurate in phrasing the sentiments as such; “The Machiavellian rules ensure that the level of dishonesty in politics correlates with an increase in level of power, this is not to say that the most powerful is the most dishonest, only that it is most likely the case”.
politicians around, particularly at a local level. I am married to
one!
Me: Yes, that I could tell! I intend no offence to any individuals, speaking in general is a dangerous thing to do when people are concerned. I may have perhaps been more accurate in phrasing the sentiments as such; “The Machiavellian rules ensure that the level of dishonesty in politics correlates with an increase in level of power, this is not to say that the most powerful is the most dishonest, only that it is most likely the case”.
Them: Sadly I have to agree.
Me: Still, hardly an inoffensive sentiment. In the present political system I find myself drawn to those people for their integrity and not their policies for that is the pragmatic approach. It is for this reason I will feel very safe in placing my vote with you in the future. It is because of this communication that I feel I know you enough to judge this is the case and vote for the individual and not the party or the policy.
6.
6.
Them: Where I have my doubts is over single issue voting. You refer to 'most major choices' being voted on nationally. What is not clear to me from your essay is who decides on the non-major issues. Is this to be your Utopian parliament?
Me: The executives running the branches of government, NHS, education, transport etc work to guidelines which may be altered by national vote. These executives are voted in and may also be voted out although there would be no term of office.
Me: The executives running the branches of government, NHS, education, transport etc work to guidelines which may be altered by national vote. These executives are voted in and may also be voted out although there would be no term of office.
What is your objection to having a specified or maximum term of office? It seems to me that this would provide an extra safeguard for the system.
Me: That same safeguard can be just as effective if done as an allowable approval veto from the public. The reason I do not like to set arbitrary time limits on terms of control is simply the short term changes it provides more incentive for. Choices that consider the long term as generally far better for society. This is one of the most significant advantages China has had over western democracies for many years. They build for the future, our frequent change of political opinion in power makes for much undoing previous things and making quick fixes.
Them: I note and accept your point about having no fixed terms should produce long term policies and benefits.
Me: In the case of these branches the executive is afforded a high degree of control, only required to implement initiatives that are voted in. They would have control over how they allocated most of their budget although I imagine they would have little scope to drastically change things based on the guidelines.
Me:In terms of what is an issue that can be locally varied rather than require national vote these will be things that are either passed down from the higher parliament as the result of a national vote or when it relates to a specific thing that affects no other region. There are similarities between my hierarchical satellite system and that of the USA, the various states having differing rules on certain things and some of the direct democratic properties too.
Me: Other than that all issues are major issues and will come to main parliament, should they vote it through it will then go to national vote and if it goes through again it will be passed to the appropriate branch of government to enact. Parliament only really acts a a filter to prevent vast numbers of votes needing to be continually taken. It would also serve as record of debate in podcast or televised form so people could look at the discussion to help with their choice.
Me:In terms of what is an issue that can be locally varied rather than require national vote these will be things that are either passed down from the higher parliament as the result of a national vote or when it relates to a specific thing that affects no other region. There are similarities between my hierarchical satellite system and that of the USA, the various states having differing rules on certain things and some of the direct democratic properties too.
Me: Other than that all issues are major issues and will come to main parliament, should they vote it through it will then go to national vote and if it goes through again it will be passed to the appropriate branch of government to enact. Parliament only really acts a a filter to prevent vast numbers of votes needing to be continually taken. It would also serve as record of debate in podcast or televised form so people could look at the discussion to help with their choice.
Them: Noted.
7.
7.
Them: Who would decide on the wording of the questions put to the electorate on the major issues? Whoever does this is in a very powerful position.
Me: Yes, very much so. Part of the solution to this is ensuring that those who have such roles are not afforded other powers or responsibilities. My utopia is a complete vision that is intended to work as a whole system, aspects of the utopian democracy sadly suffer from more capitalist issues (not that I am against capitalism, I am for it in very much the same way as I am for democracy – yes but not this one!). Divorcing wealth from power and reducing the wealth gap are huge social issues I rank above most others and would externally solve many of the issues in politics.
Me: Yes, very much so. Part of the solution to this is ensuring that those who have such roles are not afforded other powers or responsibilities. My utopia is a complete vision that is intended to work as a whole system, aspects of the utopian democracy sadly suffer from more capitalist issues (not that I am against capitalism, I am for it in very much the same way as I am for democracy – yes but not this one!). Divorcing wealth from power and reducing the wealth gap are huge social issues I rank above most others and would externally solve many of the issues in politics.
Them: I agree 100%.
Me: As for how it is done, the parliament must vote on which way to phrase the question or issue. Any person within the parliament is entitled to suggest a wording although this is an area which could change. Charging a neutral office, such as that of the chair, with offering a suggestion on how to phrase votes that are as neutral as possible to be voted on alongside other suggestions from within parliament may be helpful too.
Me: As for how it is done, the parliament must vote on which way to phrase the question or issue. Any person within the parliament is entitled to suggest a wording although this is an area which could change. Charging a neutral office, such as that of the chair, with offering a suggestion on how to phrase votes that are as neutral as possible to be voted on alongside other suggestions from within parliament may be helpful too.
Them: From my experience of chairing meetings, I agree that this may well be helpful.
8.
8.
Them: If I have interpreted it correctly, the 'witnesses' would consist of
one per particular field. You say that they would have significant
influence on the parliament. Is this not dangerous as if they were able
to exert such influence, how easily could they be voted out?
Me: The ease in which any official may be voted out would as easy as any other change. The motion would be suggested in parliament followed with some justifications and defences. It would then be put to the parliamentary vote and then onto national vote if successful. The results of the national vote would come in and that would be that. I see no reason the process should take longer than a week.
Me: I think I suggested multiple persons occupying the role, just a requirement of one for sittings of parliament. The more the merrier in terms of effect and so cost and time constraints are the only limits. These people would hold much power but would be voted in. I imagine Sir David Attenborough to be the sort of public figure that may end up in one such role, trusted and wholesome. These witnesses are there for their wisdom, not their politics. I appreciate this is one of the most fairy tale aspects of the system and will refer you to the answer regarding the power of the persons wording the vote for much of my solution, the rest being the ability to both vote these persons in and out.
9.
one per particular field. You say that they would have significant
influence on the parliament. Is this not dangerous as if they were able
to exert such influence, how easily could they be voted out?
Me: The ease in which any official may be voted out would as easy as any other change. The motion would be suggested in parliament followed with some justifications and defences. It would then be put to the parliamentary vote and then onto national vote if successful. The results of the national vote would come in and that would be that. I see no reason the process should take longer than a week.
Me: I think I suggested multiple persons occupying the role, just a requirement of one for sittings of parliament. The more the merrier in terms of effect and so cost and time constraints are the only limits. These people would hold much power but would be voted in. I imagine Sir David Attenborough to be the sort of public figure that may end up in one such role, trusted and wholesome. These witnesses are there for their wisdom, not their politics. I appreciate this is one of the most fairy tale aspects of the system and will refer you to the answer regarding the power of the persons wording the vote for much of my solution, the rest being the ability to both vote these persons in and out.
9.
Them: The regional representatives in the second of your groups would, you suggest, represent areas similar to the present ones for the most part. Would these be like current MPs, except that they probably not be able to decide on most major issues?
Me: Yes, these are the closest my system has to an MP in that they are elected persons to represent smaller areas. They would help decide which local issues were put to local vote and also which issues they wished to be carried forth to the higher parliament. As these persons would be politically minded but performing the equivalent role of the jury in the main parliament they would be more able to act like current MPs.
Them: Would these representatives replace MPs and/or county, district and unitary councillors? In other words, are you creating another layer of bureaucracy? I assume not, but I’m not sure how much of the current system yours would replace. Presumably all of it?
Me: Yes, my system is intended as a complete replacement. Any way I could find to allow a gradual change from one system to the next would be ideal. Change needs to be fluid and not abrupt to work in these kinds of situations.
Me: Depending on the size of the system the number of layers would change, all those in the middle parliaments would be like MPs. I didn't feel the need to get random people in to perform jury style politics in the middle level, perhaps that would be useful at some of the higher “middle” levels. Perhaps the whole jury idea is also optimistic fantasy and allowing the elected representatives of the lower levels in the main parliament the vote on what was put to national vote would be a more effective system. The main point is that those in parliament only choose what to put to national (or local) vote, not the outcome of that vote. Exactly how that is done is less important. Either way, my system would significantly reduce the power of politicians.
10.
Them: What is not clear to me from your essay (it may just be me) is who would decide on the size of the national budget and how this would be divided between different national needs. Would this be put to a vote
by the electorate, as this is one of the most major issues of all? I would have serious concerns if this were to be the case. I am confident that such vote is likely to be be in favour of the lowest tax take option, which could have serious consequences. I am of the school of thought that says that taxation is the price you pay for living in a civilised society.
Me: I wholeheartedly agree with you on the taxation front and certainly there is always the concern people will look to secure their own interests at the cost of others or the general good. The full answer to this question is quite long so I shall try to be as succinct as possible.
Me: I have begun an introduction to economics which does not include a full description of how I would set up an economy and fiscal policy to optimally benefit a society but it eludes to many of the main changes. If you are interested it may be found in the blog archives but the combined three parts are rather long so perhaps an necessary tangent.
Me: Depending on the size of the system the number of layers would change, all those in the middle parliaments would be like MPs. I didn't feel the need to get random people in to perform jury style politics in the middle level, perhaps that would be useful at some of the higher “middle” levels. Perhaps the whole jury idea is also optimistic fantasy and allowing the elected representatives of the lower levels in the main parliament the vote on what was put to national vote would be a more effective system. The main point is that those in parliament only choose what to put to national (or local) vote, not the outcome of that vote. Exactly how that is done is less important. Either way, my system would significantly reduce the power of politicians.
10.
Them: What is not clear to me from your essay (it may just be me) is who would decide on the size of the national budget and how this would be divided between different national needs. Would this be put to a vote
by the electorate, as this is one of the most major issues of all? I would have serious concerns if this were to be the case. I am confident that such vote is likely to be be in favour of the lowest tax take option, which could have serious consequences. I am of the school of thought that says that taxation is the price you pay for living in a civilised society.
Me: I wholeheartedly agree with you on the taxation front and certainly there is always the concern people will look to secure their own interests at the cost of others or the general good. The full answer to this question is quite long so I shall try to be as succinct as possible.
Me: I have begun an introduction to economics which does not include a full description of how I would set up an economy and fiscal policy to optimally benefit a society but it eludes to many of the main changes. If you are interested it may be found in the blog archives but the combined three parts are rather long so perhaps an necessary tangent.
Them: Interested but with time constraints at present!
Me: Part of the problem with peoples choices are the incentives the economy provides. Changing the economy is a far harder challenge than changing politics for several reasons however doing so can remove a lot of the problems we find in most other areas of society. I am of the controversial opinion that, if set up to cope with the differences, operating an economy under a minimal level of deflation serves the society best. It forces people to look at the long term and not the short term.
Me: I am in favour of progressive income tax and generally in favour of taxes that hit places of high wealth density.
Me: Part of the problem with peoples choices are the incentives the economy provides. Changing the economy is a far harder challenge than changing politics for several reasons however doing so can remove a lot of the problems we find in most other areas of society. I am of the controversial opinion that, if set up to cope with the differences, operating an economy under a minimal level of deflation serves the society best. It forces people to look at the long term and not the short term.
Me: I am in favour of progressive income tax and generally in favour of taxes that hit places of high wealth density.
Them: Agreed.
Me: Part of my overall utopian vision exists within an essay not yet put together which details the use of tax. I just began to explain the mechanics of it and realised I would basically end up writing the article so shall just summarise again. I would link minimum wage to an upper threshold of earning, for example say twenty fold difference, with a progressive tax system to make this a smooth transition.
Them: Agreed.
Me: Although rather technical for common politics it could easily be graphically and fractionally represented for ease of use and understanding. The control the populous would have over this would be to change the steepness of the curve, to alter the upper and lower limits and so forth. They would have less control over how much they ended up paying as that would tend to be based on the cost of government and it's revenue. With the added benefit of deflation things could be done “not on credit” as it were and taxes could be used to retroactively pay for government expense. As such, the taxation levels are set, the income is known and the state bill is ready so each person is able to pay the required amount based on their earnings. These are obviously more serious changes that would need to happen to have any effect on this particular issue of my democratic system. This has prompted me to get the related article written so as to help make sense of the various suggestions I have made so far.
Me: No vote would exists that was lower taxes; yes or no, it would have to come with an option for where to make that saving. The hope is that by empowering people and providing fully functioning systems to operate change they will chose to not cut money from the NHS to lower taxes and such like. This is wandering into the realms of sociology but I do tend to think if you fully empower people the majority will chose to put more money into the most beneficial of social enterprises such as education and health.
Me: No vote would exists that was lower taxes; yes or no, it would have to come with an option for where to make that saving. The hope is that by empowering people and providing fully functioning systems to operate change they will chose to not cut money from the NHS to lower taxes and such like. This is wandering into the realms of sociology but I do tend to think if you fully empower people the majority will chose to put more money into the most beneficial of social enterprises such as education and health.
Them: I would like to think that you are right but I am afraid that I have my doubts. Opinion polls cannot be trusted on such issues, in my view, as they do not come with a price tag attached.
Me: My intention is more of allocation of the money and not as much how much to put back into ones pocket. With a sensible proportional tax system the cost of things will naturally fall most on the fewest, as such it seems inevitable that an increase in taxes will be voted on for desired services. I imagine if I went into town with a collection box guaranteeing that for ever £1 that was donated a millionaire would give £1,000 I would get a vast quantity of money from the public. People are happy to pay if they think it is a good deal, which my system would demonstrate quite clearly I think. With a wage cap based on national average earnings and a process for democratic adjustments on general asset allocation I believe we would arrive at a point where a similar number of people lay either side of average earnings and thus an ideal wealth gap. It also means people will have the services they wish for in society, directed most by those who need them most. I could demonstrate this mathematically using game theory should you remain unconvinced.
Them: On your final point about the allocation of the tax bill between taxpayers and the services that it pays for, I cannot argue meaningfully against it, although I am not 100% convinced. Sorry if this sounds like a cop-out!
Me: Not at all, this is in fact as far as I would promote my utopia. I have no meaningful arguments against it in principle yet I remain unconvinced as to whether it would solve all the issues it claims while creating no new ones in practice. On a more personal note I think true conviction where other people are concerned is a very dangerous position to hold. History is littered with examples of those people who thought they were doing good but ended up remembered as villains.
Them: How would the total size of the tax cake be decided and how often? Long term decisions rather than annual short term ones?
Me: Quite the opposite I would suggest. The longest period in which any part of the budget should go between reviews is a year, ideally monthly. I envisage things being tweaked, lots of incremental changes to occur rather than occasional drastic ones. When things are running smoothly I also imagine these tweaks would oscillate about a pretty steady base rather than continue increasing or decreasing. This would allow for better social adjustment to changes and encourage a more stable economy. Getting to a harmonious stable economy using such a system, especially with inexperienced citizens in terms of democratic control, may well prove difficult. The split of the tax cake would begin life pretty close to what ever it looked like at the time of first using the proposed system. It would then gradually morph to represent public demand.
Them: The only further comment I have is on the length of the budgeting period. I believe that a year is the minimum period for the size of the budget, accepting that internal adjustments could and probably should be made within the course of that year. Otherwise it is difficiult to plan strategically. I accept your point on how to vary the split of the tax cake between taxpayers.
Them: The only further comment I have is on the length of the budgeting period. I believe that a year is the minimum period for the size of the budget, accepting that internal adjustments could and probably should be made within the course of that year. Otherwise it is difficiult to plan strategically. I accept your point on how to vary the split of the tax cake between taxpayers.
Me: Safe guards upon fiscal policy would likely need to be implemented during the transition period. Limits to degree of change per unit of time could solve some of the problems but could easily bring more with it such as an inability to appropriately respond to changes in the global economy. Without a safe guard in place I imagine if the UK was presently using my democratic system then we would have destroyed our entire economy by savagely taxing the finance sector to the point of sending large chunks over seas. With the UK finance industry accounting for most of our exports we could wind up among the poorest nations in Europe.
Me: Essentially this is a huge issue that cannot be solved in the realm of politics alone. There is much to say on this and will likely only be fully answered when I have completed all the essays in my utopia series (of which I am around a quarter done that are on the blog).
Them: Good luck!
Me: Thank you!
No comments:
Post a Comment