Let’s All Put It To A Vote!
10 reasons representatives should be replaced by direct democracy
1. Representatives often pass laws that are harmful, selfish, or otherwise blatantly not in the interest of the majority.
2. Legislative bodies are mathematically unrepresentative.
3. First-past-the-post enables the spoiler effect.
4. Representative systems have limited options.
5. Politicians are allowed to break their promises.
6. “Party solidarity” suppresses freedom of speech/opinion.
7. Currently, lawmaking is slow and expensive.
8. Direct democracy would make people feel empowered to make a difference.
9. Public input encourages innovation by putting power in the hands of the people.
10. In this day and age, direct democracy is technologically feasible.
First-past-the-post has many problems. It allows gerrymandering, favours fewer parties, and does not mathematically represent the population. Perhaps the worst aspect of first-past-the-post — or any representative system, for that matter — is dishonesty. It is sickening that politicians are allowed to break their promises with few or no consequences.
Representative democracy is only a small step above dictatorship. Most people hate having decisions made for them, whether those decisions were made by 300 people or just one. I, for one, believe the optimal solution is for Canada to transition towards direct democracy. Perhaps starting with mixed-member proportional representation coupled with promise enforcement.
Furthermore, any referendum with three or more options should be conducted using approval voting. This means each voter could say “yes” or “no” to each individual option. Instead of simply listing each voter’s first choice, the ballot would take every “yes” and “no” into account. Approval voting offers thorough data on the population’s preferences.
If no option wins an outright majority of the popular vote, or if the most popular option does not have a distinct lead over the second, there could be a second tiebreaker ballot with only the two most popular options. Hence, “approval-elimination” democracy.
Reason 1: Protection from harmful laws
It may not be immediately noticeable, but the wants of lawmakers are directly at odds with those of the people. Most politicians run for office with a specific, often selfish goal in mind. Representatives often pass laws that favour the rich or are otherwise detrimental to the majority of citizens, whether due to misguided priorities, special interest influence, or incompetence. The point of democracy has been all but defeated.
Direct democracy could put the legal system back on track! By allowing individuals to participate in decision-making processes directly, we can ensure that the laws and regulations implemented truly reflect the needs and desires of the majority. Changes to unjust laws would be far easier, leading to a society where the interests and well-being of the people are prioritized. With direct democracy, laws benefit the people!
Reason 2: Unequal vote impact
Even when there are hundreds of them, a body of representatives cannot mathematically represent the wants of the population. Ridings cannot contain equal voter populations, because cities and flyover regions inevitably exist. Some degree of rounding is inevitable, meaning not all votes count equally. Minority vote can lead to majority rule! Furthermore, a party can receive a substantial percentage of the popular vote and still win no seats at all, if the votes for said party are spread out.
Furthermore, most representative systems are suspect to gerrymandering, and first-past-the-post is certainly no exception. The government can redraw ridings to carve out “safe seats” and stay in power. Lawmakers want safe elections, whereas voters want close elections where the candidates have to earn their seats. Democratically speaking, close elections are healthier than safe ones. Gerrymandering makes everything a whole lot less democratic!
Other systems would significantly reduce the effects of gerrymandering, but only direct democracy can fully eliminate it. With no ridings to speak of, voters would not be divided into ridings, and gerrymandering could not exist.
Reason 3: The spoiler effect
Special thanks to YouTuber CGP Grey for making me aware of this issue. In his video about first-past-the-post, he demonstrated that if a minor party gains a significant following shortly before election day, it can ruin the chances of any similar parties. The usual result is victory for the opposite major party. Other systems such as Single Transferable Vote and Alternative Vote prevent the spoiler effect, but even so, they are only minor improvements over FPTP.
Reason 4: Limited options
In a representative system, citizens often have to choose between a few candidates. Only rarely does a voter agree with a candidate’s mission in full. Unpopular parties are likely to drop out of the race, narrowing the options. Direct democracy, on the other hand, offers unlimited options. Every reasonable idea is up for discussion, and the public isn’t forced to compromise on important matters.
Sometimes, none of the candidates are good choices. If we were to vote on ideas instead of people, the quality of decision making would likely improve. That said, direct democracy is not necessarily perfect. History has demonstrated many times that majority rule, whether direct or representative, can result in oppression of minority groups. (Both direct and representative systems often fail to represent marginalized or minority groups.) This is why some parameters would need to be in place for direct democracy to work.
The transition to direct democracy would ideally include an immutable, comprehensive constitution, granting a wide range of rights that could never be voted down. This would include human rights, equal rights, personal freedoms, and all other rights that Canadians have now. As well as some rights that do not yet exist, but should, most notably freedom from favouritism toward businesses or the wealthy. These would be more important than democratic rights, due to their status as needs of the people rather than wants. Rights and freedoms should never be revoked, only added
Reason 5: Broken promises
It’s a well-known fact that politicians often break their promises, or make deals behind closed doors, with few or no consequences. The tools used to obtain power are not always the same as those needed to maintain it. This is one problem that even proportional representation would not solve, because it too has politicians. That is why, if Canada eases into direct democracy rather than implementing it overnight, the first step should consist of both proportional representation and promise enforcement.
I don’t know how this promise enforcement would be carried out. It may have to mean some new powers for the police or the courts, but at this point, I probably speak for most Canadians when I say we’re desperate for some progress, no matter how it gets done. It’s never okay to break a promise!
Reason 6: Party politics
No one should be obligated to support a party’s mission. The existing “party solidarity” system suppresses freedom of speech and opinion, both of which are constitutional rights for all Canadians. In a perfect representative system, every representative would vote according to the best interests of their constituents. Everyone should be free to argue for whatever is in their heart! Most people who join a political party do not agree with its mission in full. Rather, they want to belong to something.
Furthermore, representatives often find themselves supporting issues which have no impact on their area. The purpose of local representation has been largely defeated by the requirement for party loyalty. This problem exists under not only FPTP, but all systems with political parties.
Representative government fuels division and partisanship. Politicians are often more interested in toeing the party line than solving real problems. Direct democracy cuts through this nonsense. When we vote directly on issues, it’s not about left or right anymore; it’s about what we believe is best for us, our families, and our communities.
Reason 7: Efficiency
Currently, lawmaking is slow and expensive. Members of Parliament reside in every province and territory of Canada. Getting them all together to vote on a law is expensive and time-consuming, making it difficult to adapt to changing circumstances. With public votes, it would be a lot quicker and easier to make laws. (The proposals may have to include simple blurbs as well as more detailed information for those who want it.) Then, the laws could better reflect the interests of the people. Political progress would be much faster!
On a related note, outdated laws often remain because they are expensive to repeal. This includes laws pertaining to items no longer in common use, such as horse-drawn carriages and outhouses, as well as fines that have not been amended for inflation. Direct democracy could make it easier to repeal or update these laws. Perhaps the direct democracy constitution would require laws to come up for review.
Reason 8: Community empowerment
In representative government, your opinion can easily be drowned out. Maybe the candidate you voted for lost, or maybe your representative is more focused on pleasing a party than serving you. Putting issues to public vote gives you continuous influence. Your input doesn’t end after election day; it’s needed for every major decision.
Most people would rather make their own decisions than have representatives to do so. Direct democracy ensures decisions are made by those directly impacted, reflecting local needs and empowering citizens. If people feel more empowered to make a difference, public interest in politics (read: voter turnout) will likely increase.
In a direct democracy, you don’t need to trust politicians to make decisions for you; you make them yourself. Why should a handful of representatives speak for millions? You know what’s best for your life, your community, and your future. When you vote on the issues directly, the policies you care about actually get implemented, without being watered down or ignored by career politicians.
Everything should be put to a vote on as wide a scale as is affected. This means local issues should be decided locally rather than nationally, with only necessary exceptions such as secession. (History has proven time and again that declaring independence is a remarkably easy way to start a war!)
Reason 9: Innovation through input
Public input hastens progress and innovation. Not only because direct democracy is more efficient than representatives, but also because more people involved in lawmaking would inevitably mean more ideas. With direct democracy, if the majority wants something done, it gets done quickly!
Reason 10: Feasibility
Modern technology enables efficient direct participation through secure voting systems, making direct democracy more practical than ever before.