Skip to main content

Why democracy doesn't always require a majority

With the recent referendum in BC on electoral reform, which resulted in not only a defeat at the polls but also an abysmal voter turnout at 42.6% of eligible votes, there have been some renewed calls for policy decisions to be reviewed by a random assortment of voters through something like a Citizens' Assembly. A citizen's assembly would be an alternative, or a complement, to a public vote on a matter of public policy such as electoral reform; rather than putting the matter directly to the public, a random group of citizens would be selected and convened to give their opinion.

Further, over the course of the referendum, other important questions were raised about the process itself: what's a sufficient voter turnout to inform a policy decision? Shouldn't the ballot include the specific details of the voting system being proposed?

All of these questions serve as an important reminder of why democracy entails much more than showing up at a poll booth to submit a vote. Arguably, with a response rate below a majority of eligible voters, the validity of the vote on the referendum could be called into question. But what is a sufficient participation rate for democratic decision-making? Are there times when a random selection of citizens should be convened to provide an opinion on a matter of public policy?

One thing is clear: citizen assemblies do not constitute representative samples of the population - they are not reflective of majority opinion. Which begs the question - from the standpoint of democratic legitimacy, when are they appropriate?

The short answer: when it's important to have individuals without a party affiliation or explicit political agenda research something in detail, give it thoughtful consideration, and develop informed solutions or policy proposals. In contrast, if you're looking for a definitive answer about a particular question, wanting to gauge opinion, and reinforce the democratic principle of 1 person = 1 vote, then you will want to strive for equal representation through a statistically representative sample.

Aitamurto, Galli, and Salminen (2014) contrast these two approaches in this wonderful table:

Their paper is a terrific outline of the key features of effective crowdsourcing efforts. To some extent, good crowd-sourcing compromises the principle of 1 person = 1 vote; you're looking for the best ideas from whoever has them, and participants self-select. This means the most interested individuals may be the ones participating, rather than a broad group of equally represented population groups.

So if you're looking for an idea that is new, innovative, and captures the best thinking - something like a citizen assembly or crowdsourced option might be best. However, if you have a particular policy proposal, and are looking for an authentic gauge of public support to make a final decision, be sure a representative sample factors in.

In the case of the BC referendum on electoral reform, perhaps it would have been preferable to have the 'crowd' come up with innovative and different possibilities for electoral reform, before taking a representative sample poll by way of a referendum.

Table 1 is from the research paper: Self - Selection in Crowdsourced Democracy: A Bug or a Feature? 2014: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284727527_Self-selection_In_Crowdsourced_Democracy_A_Bug_Or_A_Feature
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Including rational thought in decision-making: novel idea?

The post last week brought up the idea that we need to think about what concepts and ideas are put forward in the public realm. From pop music to sports to local community events, our approach to decision-making is influenced by commonly understood cultural practices. Meaningful democratic decision-making requires that we think about the practices, ideas, and values that percolate throughout society. More specifically, when it comes to engaging a group of people to get together and go through a democratic decision-making process, practitioners need to think about how participants are being, or have been, educated. By definition, democratic decision-making is not limited to specialists. "Rule by the people" means everyone gets to participate in decision-making, even about issues where we are not experts. This does not mean, however, that democratic decision-making should be approached from a place of ignorance.  Robert Dahl  emphasized the importance of  enlight
1 comment
Read more

Freedom to do stuff vs. freedom from stuff

As our children grow up we typically give them more freedom and discretion over the activities they will pursue, and increasing freedom of choice when it comes to who they will associate with and the type of education they want. It's commonly accepted that freedom from tyranny, oppression, and control is a hallmark of a democratic society; we should be free to lead and build a life of our choosing. Leading and guiding one another to a life of freedom is a great privilege that many communities are still fighting and striving towards.  However, when our children are young, we're a bit more directive. When I wake up my daughters in the morning, whether they get dressed, eat breakfast, and get ready for school is not up for discussion or deliberation. At first, commanding them when to put on their shoes might seem to contravene their freedom of choice. Am I restraining their liberty? Obstructing their progress as free individuals? In directing them through these activities,
Post a Comment
Read more

State government: not necessary for democracy

Got your attention? This statement may seem counter-intuitive, but it may very well be true. Democracy can mean a whole lot of things, but it does not necessarily require or imply state government. A state can be thought of as a political entity, typically with perceived sovereignty over some geographic territory, a single unified government, and a monopoly on the legal deployment of an army or other enforcement agency. If we understand democracy as structures and processes for people to make decisions about their communities, then are any of the above items necessary? You might think the answer is yes - that at the least we need some kind of unified government. But what if we define government more holistically as systems and structures that govern some kind of organized community? Is this possible without the additional features of a state : geographic sovereignty, a single unitary government, and a monopoly on organized force? I would suggest that yes, it might be possible
Post a Comment
Read more