Proposals for the introduction of Elements of Direct Democracy in Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Proposals quoted from Our-Say, Unlock Democracy, Power Inquiry, I&Rgb
The “four sets of proposals” may be found in www at
Comments by anonymous guest
Michael:
I like what you are doing, and had a few thoughts on your
proposal.
1. I personally do not like quorum requirements. For one thing, they
require voters to think strategically: should I vote NO or ABSTAIN? The
best system is one where voters are encouraged to express their opinions
clearly without having to make strategic calculations. Another problem
with a quorum is that in some cases it treats abstentions as NO votes. On
any given issue, I think citizens ought to be able to express one of
three opinions: (a) support, (b) opposition, or (c)
abstention/indifference. That is, it ought to be possible for citizens to
say they defer to the will of the majority (=abstain). If the rationale
behind a quorum is to prevent passage of a measure that does not have
broad support, you can use a supermajority provision.
2. I think restrictions on campaign spending are ill-advised. One of the
biggest issues with direct democracy is whether ordinary citizens are
sufficiently informed to make policy decisions. The way to have an
informed citizenry is to let the pro and con groups make their arguments
as often and as boldly as they see fit. Restricting campaign spending
results in a less-informed citizenry, and creates a greater potential for
poor public decisions. It may be worth noting that the main reason for
spending limits in candidate elections is to prevent the possibility of
corruption -- with a lot of spending a candidate may become indebted to
wealthy interests -- but that concern does not apply on a ballot issue
because it does not result in an officeholder with power to deliver
favors.
3. I am not sure why tax and spending issues should be off the table.
Fiscal issues are the heart of what the government does, and if there is
an argument that the people should have a say in how they are governed,
it would seem to apply to here as well. More practically, prohibiting
certain subjects creates gray areas (almost every issue has some
financial ramifications), which invites meddling by whatever authority is
empowered to decide whether a line has been crossed or not.
4. The proposal to allow calls for hearings is novel, but I am not sure
what would come of it. If politicians don't want to hold hearings but are
forced to by an initiative, will they really do it in a meaningful way?
From a strategic point of view, I think the more complex is your
proposal, the harder it will be to sell. I would consider stripping it
down to very basic initiative and referendum rights.
Anyway, hope these thoughts are of some value.