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 accurately represent the population. Perhaps the worst aspect of first-past-the-post (or any representative system) is dishonesty; politicians break promises with few or no consequences.
Representative democracy is only a small step above dictatorship. Most people hate having decisions made for them, whether by 300 people or just one. The ideal solution is for Canada to transition towards direct democracy, perhaps starting with mixed-member proportional representation coupled with promise enforcement.
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.
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 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 at odds with those of the people. Most politicians run for office with a specific, selfish goal in mind, resulting in laws that favour the rich or are otherwise detrimental to the majority. 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. With direct democracy, laws benefit the people!
Reason 2: Unequal vote impact
A body of representatives, even hundreds strong, cannot mathematically represent the wants of the population. Ridings cannot contain equal voter populations. Some degree of rounding is inevitable, meaning not all votes count equally. Minority vote can lead to majority rule!
Gerrymandering is common, but harms democracy. 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 the healthier option.
Other systems would reduce the effects of gerrymandering, but only direct democracy can fully eliminate it. With no ridings to speak of, gerrymandering could not exist.
Reason 3: The spoiler effect
In CGP Grey‘s 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.
Reason 4: Limited options
An individual voter rarely agrees with a candidate’s mission in full. Unpopular parties are likely to drop out of the race, narrowing 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.
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 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, permanently guaranteeing a wide range of rights. This would include all rights Canadians have now, and some that do not exist but should, such as freedom from favouritism toward businesses or the wealthy. These would be more important than democratic rights, due to their status as public needs 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. The tools used to obtain power often differ from 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 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. 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!
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 is needed for every major decision.
Most people would rather make their own decisions than have representatives. Direct democracy ensures decisions are made by those impacted, reflecting needs and empowering citizens. If people feel empowered to make a difference, interest in politics (i.e. voter turnout) will likely increase.
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 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 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, 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.