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

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Who gets to decide when it comes to Community Amenity Contributions?

This week we're approaching candidates in the upcoming Vancouver municipal election to get their feedback on the city's approach to Community Amenity Contributions (CACs). The Evoke team undertook a case study and research project in this area, and believes these could be better approached. Candidate responses will be posted on this site, meanwhile, here's some background on our perspective. 
The City of Vancouver has a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) policy, officially established in 2004 with their Financing Growth strategy, where all new development and rezoning applications contribute, financially or in-kind, to community amenities. The CACs are extracted from new development and spent upon Council approval in a number of valuable areas such as: affordable housing, child care, amenities, green spaces, community infrastructure and other public goods.
Our research focuses on a key dimension related to CACs; although they are derived from value created within a neighb…

Where do the candidates stand on CAC's?

After the release of our research paper Who's Counting the Dollars?concerning Community Amenity Contributions, we have asked candidates in this year's municipal election for their thoughts on our recommendations.
We will post responses here as they are received.

OneCity Vancouver, Christine Boyle
One of the big ideas that OneCity Vancouver is bringing to this election is our Windfall Power Land Value Capture proposal (sometimes called a land value tax, or land lift tax). You can read more about it in this Vancouver Sun Op-Ed, and more will be released with our platform soon. 

A land value capture wouldn't entirely replace the CAC system, but it would dramatically scale it back by creating a more transparent system for measuring the impact that upzoning or nearby public infrastructure investments have on land value, and then capturing a portion of that 'lift' in value to spend on community priorities (like affordable housing and more robust public transit). In addition…

Do the Ends justify the Means?

The City of Vancouver, in British Columbia Canada, recently sought council approval for the Making Room Housing Programin June 2018, with a Public Hearing set for September the same year. The program is intended as a new city wide approach to housing and zoning which will purportedly allow for a wider range of housing choices in Vancouver’s neighbourhoods.

Citing a need for more housing choice, the staff report clarifies that the Making Room Housing program will include consultation through 2018/19 to determine the type of housing that will make sense for different neighbourhoods, but also requests an immediate ‘quick start’ action to allow duplexes in all areas currently zoned for single families.

Which begs the question: does a good policy justify a ‘quick start’ approach to implementation? Do the ends justify the means?

Vancouver is in a time of a housing crisis with citizens and stakeholders from different backgrounds having expressed a desire for bold actions. Many would argue that …