Voting as Consent
Nov. 2nd, 2010 08:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
lightcastleSome thoughts brought on by my earlier post and some conversations on the internet about "my vote doesn't decide anything".
There is a lot of talk from time to time about how inefficient democracy is, and this is sometimes true. That being said, more and more I've been toying with how voting isn't where you attempt to set policy (That should be done with lots more input to the system through activism and open communication channels, a situation that's pretty terrible in the US right now.), it is your chance to consent to the government.
In other words, if you flip the script of a republic, instead of sending someone to represent you, you consent to that person representing you. Democracy becomes about securing the consent of the governed, preferably in a legitimate manner.
I'm not sure this gives us anything, as I haven't followed it down the warren, but it might have some merit. It does explain why I tend to like the approval voting idea so much.
This might just be a flailing feeling of frustration having to do with the fact that we have so little input into who candidates are and how we steer them. Since they are picked for us, rather than we getting to select them, would viewing it as a consent process work?
This somewhat ties to the None of the Above option which exists in some countries, where NOTA exists as a legitimate part of the ballot. (With different options for deciding a winner if NOTA wins.)
There is a lot of talk from time to time about how inefficient democracy is, and this is sometimes true. That being said, more and more I've been toying with how voting isn't where you attempt to set policy (That should be done with lots more input to the system through activism and open communication channels, a situation that's pretty terrible in the US right now.), it is your chance to consent to the government.
In other words, if you flip the script of a republic, instead of sending someone to represent you, you consent to that person representing you. Democracy becomes about securing the consent of the governed, preferably in a legitimate manner.
I'm not sure this gives us anything, as I haven't followed it down the warren, but it might have some merit. It does explain why I tend to like the approval voting idea so much.
This might just be a flailing feeling of frustration having to do with the fact that we have so little input into who candidates are and how we steer them. Since they are picked for us, rather than we getting to select them, would viewing it as a consent process work?
This somewhat ties to the None of the Above option which exists in some countries, where NOTA exists as a legitimate part of the ballot. (With different options for deciding a winner if NOTA wins.)
via network
Date: 2010-11-03 01:27 am (UTC)Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 01:42 am (UTC)Well, the easiest version of NOTA I've heard of is that if NOTA wins, the second place person takes the seat. The full results are reported, however, which means that person can't claim a "mandate".
In other words, it changes nothing practically, but alters the narrative.
Not an ideal solution, but a babystep to getting a better sense of the electorate.
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 01:54 am (UTC)I know that is what people might prefer since it is easiest but my argument against that would be, they didn't actually win so why would they still get the position? Easiest is not necessarily best.
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 02:16 am (UTC)I've seen versions that require a new election, others that require the people who lost not run again, etc.
I do tend to like the easiest solution somewhat when it comes to elections though. The clearer a system is to the people voting, the better. This is especially true when you are trying to change things, since a small step is sometimes more easily accepted.
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 02:24 am (UTC)See icon.
Personally, I'd like more choices of people who are not politicians (or idiots). The year that the stripper ran for city council here was one of my favorite voting years of all time. She didn't win but I did vote for her.
I'd like to have our dual-party system crumble and have people be forced to stand on their own actual beliefs and experience in dealing with people.
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 02:55 am (UTC)Huh, I can't remember if I voted for the sex worker representing the Sex Work Party when they ran in Montreal... I think I did, but it was a while ago.
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 03:00 am (UTC)And this is why Canadians are more awesome than Americans.
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 03:04 am (UTC)Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 03:11 am (UTC)So, really, I don't think Canadians are more awesome than Americans (or the other way around). I do, however, think that the fact that a Sex Work Party could actually exist is one of the awesome things about Canada. I roll my eyes at the uproar that would cause in America.
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 03:19 am (UTC)I don't think I could handle living in Japan.
As far as the Sex work party (Did some searching, there have been a couple, one based in Quebec, the other in BC. The BC one is still active.), it did cause an uproar here as well, of course.
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 03:21 am (UTC)Don't ruin my sparkly, Canada love. :D
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 03:45 am (UTC)I'm sorry.
Did I mention the recent case finding some of our anti-sex work laws unconstitutional up here? :)
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 03:47 am (UTC)Puts firmly into 'Canada is awesome' column.
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 04:24 am (UTC)Saved myself.
Re: via network
Date: 2010-11-03 01:35 pm (UTC)Sex Work Party
Date: 2010-11-03 03:05 am (UTC)