Referendum, Pressure Release Valve or Pressure Cooker?

I've written before that direct democracy could be a useful pressure release valve for political activists who would be better persuading other voters than engaging in violent protest. On the other hand some commentators have lamented the animosity evident in the recent Scottish independence referendum. So what provokes aggression?
It could be that some people just can't consider that others have different values. Some are traditionalists, others progressives. Some narrowly nationalistic, others not.
Or it could be that people feel that they are being lied to, deceived or manipulated by leaders, politicians and campaigners. Maybe sometimes by design, sometimes by accident or misinterpretation. (Scotland can't have the pound, some said. Of course they can, they have pounds in their bank accounts and pockets. How're you going to stop them? What was meant was that the Bank of England would refuse to be lender of last resort to Scottish banks.)
Then there's the matter of forecasting the future benefits of a decision, and all the assumptions that that entails. Is it rosy or grey? Who knows? There's nothing true about forecasts, they are usually inaccurate, unless by luck, and often wildly wrong.
Maybe we can introduce systems that help to reduce some of these provocations. Laws against lying in public life would be a start. Discussion of the limits of forecasting would be useful. Appreciation of differences in values and respect for others opinions may be a cultural thing that could be learnt. Maybe doing direct democracy, and losing, builds a bit of humility that makes things less fraught next time. And maybe having a system of direct democracy that allows future corrections and amendments to recent decisions takes the edge off disappointment. If Switzerland changes its constitution by referendum then the system is already in place to change it back again, if demanded.
But when I sit back and consider the referendum for Scottish Independence and the state of Eastern Ukraine it's pretty obvious what's best!

Ineffective Democracy

Could one of the reasons for a substantial number of Scots wanting to split from the UK be that we have an ineffective democracy? On several occasions I've seen and heard interviews with Scots who point out that in the last election they only returned one Conservative MP yet are now lead by a Conservative Prime Minister (in a Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition).
Would the earlier introduction of new powers for Scotland's parliament have avoided the devolution referendum? It may have done.
Would Direct Democracy, like Switzerland, have empowered Scots? Probably. The Swiss have long prospered with a system of Cantons speaking different languages and doing local government.
Seen in this light, the possible break up of the UK can be seen as an indictment of our political system by the Unionist side. Too little, too late. Too central, too out of touch.

The Key Question

Referenda in Crimea and Scotland have one key yes/no question, but is that question the right one? Shouldn't the Crimeans have been asked if they wanted to be independent, part of Ukraine or part of Russia? The same complexity exists over Scotland's independence referendum as Merryn Somerset Webb explains in her article here. She points out that Quebec did things differently in the 1980s, offering a second referendum once details had been negotiated.
The problem with most referenda is that they are expensive to administer and costly to replicate. Not so with Interactive Democracy (ID): doing it online has tiny marginal costs. With ID, referenda can be frequent and thus much more accurate and refined.
And I suggest that if you don't vote then your Member of Parliament should vote on your behalf, so that frequent plebiscites don't become onerous yet you are always represented.

Californian Referendum on Cannabis

A referendum on legalising and taxing cannabis in California is expected in November. The referendum was given the green light after 694000 people signed a petition calling for the question to be added to the states general election ballot paper. According to some reports this could save $200million in public order costs and reap $1.4billion in taxes. The debate on this contentious issue is also likely to cover health issues, use while driving and the slippery slope argument. The details of the Initiative can be read here.

More from The Telegraph here.

Referendum on Electoral Reform

Negotiations over who forms the next coalition government have seen both Labour and the Conservatives offer a referendum on the Alternative Vote, not the Lib Dems preferred Single Transferable Vote. Why, because AV is most likely to benefit the larger parties and STV is most likely to benefit the minor parties.

They could offer a referendum on two or three plans for electoral reform from the three main parties and, to my mind, offering a referendum only on AV is a cynical attempt to disenfranchise voters. It says that they really don't trust voters to make a fair and considered decision about the merits of each system, after hearing a broad debate.

Democracy? What democracy?

Deciding on Electoral Reform

The ConservaTories and LibDems are negotiating about forming a government. One of the central issues is electoral reform. Each party agrees that something must be done to make for a fairer voting system and each have suggested reducing the number of MPs, but they have very different proposals. On the one hand the LibDems prefer a Single Transferrable Vote type of Proportional Representation in which you rank your preferred choices (leaving blank the boxes next to the MPs you don't want). Each constituency can have several MPs. The Conservatives prefer First Past the Post but suggest that each constituency should have an equal number of voters (something that may be deemed fair for a PR constituency, too).

Wouldn't it be properly democratic, and avoid the self interests of each party, to put these choices to the electorate? Should we consider other referendum options too - the Labour Manifesto suggested a referendum on the Alternative Vote, which also allows you to rank Candidates but just one is chosen for each Constituency.

Interestingly, if the electorate were presented with more than two options, then should the ballot be counted on a FPTP basis or a type of PR?

The objective of the referendum should be to reach a clear decision, building a consensus from the degree of support for each proposal, yet be simple to operate. It should accommodate views on preferred, acceptable and unacceptable choices. To my mind it would therefore be sensible to allow voters to rank their preferences, if they wanted to, counting 1st place as worth three times the power of the 3rd place and the 2nd place as double the value of the 3rd place (1st is worth 3 points, 2nd worth 2 points, 3rd worth 1 point). No ranking is effectively a vote against that proposal. While the calculation may not be fully understood by everyone, the ballot paper would be clear and simple.

Icelandic Repayments Frozen

After the collapse of Icelandic banks in the UK and Netherlands forced the British and Dutch Governments to cover the losses of bank customers, there are demands that the Icelandic Government pay back the shortfall. Interestingly, for a proponent of Direct Democracy, a petition signed by nearly a quarter of Iceland's electorate has forced their President to allow a referendum on the issue. The fact that each Icelandic citizen needs to repay £10800!!! But this is just... er... the tip of the iceberg. I'm curious to see how the debate covers all of the other international perspectives: how it will effect IMF loans, EU prospects, their international trade and relationships with other financial markets. Personally, and having listened to a debate on the subject on Jeremy Vine's Radio 2 programme, I suspect a vote against repayments will really be a vote for a re-negotiation of the terms of the deal. Who knows, they may even want us to arrest those Icelandic bankers who have fled to London with their millions!
(More here from the BBC. What they don't report is that part of the issue is to do with the high interest charge (5.55% I think) included in the repayment which many Icelanders believe to be excessive.)

Iceland is a Representative Democracy with a President and Prime Minister.

Triggering a Referendum in Switzerland

In the Swiss system a federal referendum must be initiated if 50,000 people or 8 Cantons have petitioned to do so within 100 days.

Referendums within Cantons don't need so many people and may be triggered by other rules. For example if expenditure exceeds certain levels.

Referendums on changes to the constitution, or joining international organisations for trade or defence, require 100,000 signatures within 18 months.

In the past, the government has often initiated counter proposals that have won out. Reports suggest that even the threat of a citizens initiative has prompted the Swiss Parliament to reform the law without the need for a referendum.

More from wikipedia here.

********************

The proposed Interactive Democracy system could easily be modified to accommodate an ePetition with a certain trigger level, say 50,000 people. On the other hand, a system that allows the most popular petition to rise to the top of the list and be considered by Parliament, may have the effect of integrating those people interested in politics into the system. In particular, members of political parties would be likely to contribute their signatures and, therefore, have more say over Parliamentary business and the conduct of their Party.

Having a long list of ePetitions, some of which may be quite radical, may foster debate and initiate better, more creative proposals that rise to the top. All of which is much easier to do with an Internet based system. It will be interesting to see how Swiss Direct Democracy adapts to the web.

Freedom of the Minority or Control by the Majority?

Would Interactive Democracy encourage the majority to lay down the law against minorities? Would there be a loss of liberal freedoms?

It may be that by encouraging political debate amongst the wider population, individuals begin to change their views and realise that what they value isn't necessarily what other people hold dear. This understanding of the variation of human ideals could have a liberalising effect. On the other hand, vociferous debate can be polarising. (Please see this post about Group Polarisation.)

If Parliament were able to list the pros and cons of each issue I suspect this would have the effect of helping to remove the emotion from the national debate, foster rationalism, reduce polarisation and encourage understanding. This list would presented at the point of voting. Others, with strong convictions, may offer different, more stringent, leadership.

In the UK we have a strong liberal (small 'L') tradition, perhaps encouraged by the Golden Rule and the necessities of 60 million people living on a small island. I suspect this cultural identity would emerge in ballots that could, if allowed, limit the freedoms of minorities.

Criteria for a Referendum

What is it that makes some issues appropriate for a public vote?

1. Complexity/simplicity of the subject? Most votes can be boiled down to simple issues!
2. The time and media coverage available to address the issue? Each vote is an interactive media story.
3. The public's capacity to give due consideration to the pros and cons? Opinion leaders with media access are important to the debate.
4. Cost of administering the referendum? Interactive Democracy benefits from low cost IT services.
5. National security considerations?... Decisions may be based on secrets!... Or they may be based on morals?
6. Frequent votes may lead to overload and voter apathy! But people can vote on many issues at one sitting and may not vote at all on issues they have no feelings about.
   

It seems to me that when politicians decide if there should be a referendum, there's a little voice in the back of their heads saying "Only do it if you are sure we will win!"

Psychology and Compliance

Could it be that laws passed by referendum infer more compliance than those from authority figures by dint of peer pressure alone? This may be a minor benefit of Interactive Democracy, averaged out among the population as a whole.

More from wikipedia.