The Forum > Article Comments > Dangerous developments for democracy? > Comments
Dangerous developments for democracy? : Comments
By Andrew Norton, published 10/2/2011Limiting the election spend of third parties like trade unions, companies and GetUp is a threat to proper democracy.
- Pages:
-
- 1
-
- All
- Pages:
-
- 1
-
- All
The real problem is UNIVERSAL SUFFRAGE -- that is, the system in which every enrolled elector can actually cast a vote at every election.
If you're a candidate, universal suffrage maximizes the number of electors to whom you must present your message. Thus it maximizes the cost of a successful campaign, and hence maximizes the influence of those with money to spend.
The solution is CONVENED-SAMPLE SUFFRAGE: For each election, in each electorate, invite a random sample of the enrolled voters to gather in one place (or one video conference). Pay them for their time, so that they can afford to accept the invitation. Let them hear and cross-examine the candidates for several days. Then let them vote as an electoral college -- choosing the candidate(s) that the entire enrolled electorate would have chosen if it had heard the same arguments. In short, don't take the campaigns to the electors at great expense; bring a sample of electors to the campaigns.
The influence of advertising and media reporting on the electoral college would be similar to their influence on the jury in a court case: not very much.
On balance, convened-sample suffrage would increase each citizen's chances of affecting the outcome. The reduction in your chances of voting would be exactly compensated by the increase in your chances of being the "tipping" voter if you did vote; and the opportunity to speak and ask questions in the electoral college would be a further avenue of influence. Universal suffrage is beguiling because it offers the certainty of having a say. But the greater probability of having a say (100%) is more than offset by the reduced probability that your "say" will swing the outcome.
[CONTINUED...]