Referendum and Initiative

[symokurka]

Sonja,
referenda called by citizens with veto power on Government's decisions are a great resource of direct democracy. They counterbalance negative peaks of "political negotiation" in Government. They give to governors a direct idea of how close or how far they are from citizens' feelings.
Though I'm not an expert (just a citizen) I highly recommend it.

[Cindy Ecksol]

Homework: why it is important to have a structure of power delegation on management organisations on decisions:

http://www.lifewithalacrity.com/2004/03 ... _numb.html

Notice how we're at one of the "stable" peaks (80 people) and how until we reach the next one (150-200) we require a specific set of organisation which mostly precludes "everybody throwing in their decision in the common room". In fact, I did read this (and similar) documents when originally discussing why referenda in an organisation like the CDS are not a good idea. Not now, and probably never, as we grow too much — and the arguments will weight even stronger against referenda in the future.

Then again, the good thing about science is that you can always find different models to explain the same data

This article is fascinating, and anyone who is interested in "group dynamics" of the type we deal with everyday on this forum ought to take a look at it. It's not specifically talking about "democratic processes" but it does shed some interesting light on large-group dynamics that we would do well to take into account. In particular, check out the section about halfway down on "Expanding Dunbar's Number" which discusses the dynamics of smaller groups. That's certainly relevant to our recent discussion about the appropriate minimum size for factions.

I'm not sure that this article supports Gwynn's contention that we should not have a referendum process, though. Seems to me that a well-designed referendum could prove to be a stabilizing force rather than a divisive one. I'm actually going through a similar crisis right now on another list I manage (probably about 100-120 active members and another 400 lurkers) and although my fellow moderator and I were reluctant to toss a big question out to the group, when we did so we discovered that opinions were surprisingly unanimous in a direction that we did not anticipate. That's really unified the group in a way that almost nothing else has over the past 10 years. Might be a good lesson for us in the CDS as well.

Cindy

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Beathan's position expressed on this thread is a considerably reasonable one of compromise.

In fact, the CSDF is at the other extreme of the issue. We're strongly in favour of a representative democracy as opposed to a system that, step be step, can be transformed into a direct democracy. With the single exception of Switzerland, all democratic countries in the world are representative democracies (the Swiss are the best — and only — example that shows that direct democracies can, indeed, work, under very special conditions. One exception to confirm the rule!).

Politically, almost all countries have a form of referendum. In many, for example, constitutional changes have to be referended. In several, ethical or moral choices are usually referended as well (since the legislative bodies are usually elected by their political views, and not exactly for their religion/ethics/morals, although this naturally also come in play). And in almost all countries, any change of legislation that will affect citizen's rights (either by changing them, or enhancing them, or restricting them in some sort) require a referendum too. Political independence (as in a country that is newly created, by secession; or, the reverse, annexation to another country) is almost always referended, too.

In practice, except on very specific cases, Governments abstain from "too many referenda", specially on executive action, for the simple reason that the Citizens elect representatives — who are supposed to stand for a strategy/ideology/plan — and are trained in the way they can tactically approve those things they stand for. This is the best model that has worked for all representative democracies so far; that's why we have them.

When citizens are given the power to directly affect executive or legislative decisions on a running basis, the effect is one of stagnation and one of doing what the majority wants, no matter if it's good for the people or not. People are fundamentally egocentric and will, almost exclusively, vote for their own good and ignore the rest of the world beyond their close sphere of family and friends — that's human nature. The old reason applies: if a Government would ask in a referendum if they should abolish taxes or not, an overwhelming majority of citizens would naturally vote "yes". Only a very, very few would have presence of mind to understand that you can't run a country without applying taxes. But citizens feel otherwise, and they'll vote with their own interests in mind, given the opportunity.

Referenda are also always phrased as a yes/no question. There is no possible compromise. On a legislative session, however, even if it's the majority that will decide, the minorities are allowed to have a strong saying. They are allowed to introduce bills, too — and convince the majority to compromise on them. That's how real world legislatures work — forging out compromises, all the time — although compromise might sometimes be unthinkable or impossible, and, to make a point, a vote is called to rule that compromise out. If citizens are asked yes/no questions, there is no middle ground for negotiation. The Europeans have felt that very strongly on the Constitution of the European Union: a document with 1200 pages would never pass a simple yes/no question, when only a handful of people would be able to understand what was at stake. It's better to reject what you don't (or can't) understand than to chance unwelcome change.

Referenda-based decision-making is the first step towards stagnation. People will resist change, if they don't understand what it's good for. A dynamic RA or Executive, full of bright new ideas that are understandable by their peers — who will work towards a compromise to make the "idea" more acceptable — would be immediately superceded by a mistrusting citzenship that doesn't believe (or doesn't understand) the need for change. Similarly, an RA wishing to preserve the status quo would easily be able to submit a series of referenda to confirm that the citizens, given the choice, would prefer things to remain the same.

That's why in general I'm against any sort of referenda that mandate compulsive legislative or executive action. Sonja, however, is just proposing advisory referenda, which are a good political tool to "feel the pulse" of the current citizens. I personally cannot find any fault with that, however, I have to side with Beathan on placing some limitations on it for the sake of a smoothly running term. Here are a few more suggestions:

• No referenda on legislative action. This means that anything that is a bill to create a new law should never be referended. (I'll open the exception on constitutional amendments — I'm against their being referended, since our Constitution is a mess and the RA will have a lot of work to clean it up, and waiting 6 months to get those changes done is, frankly, too much. I'll be easily persuaded otherwise in 10 years, where — hopefully — our Constitution starts to become a workable document)

• No referenda on executive action. Executive action in the CDS is already controlled and overseen by the RA (and, through impeachment, by the SC). It doesn't make sense to add a further level of validation. If the citizens disagree with what the Executive is doing, they can complain to their elected representatives, who can simply veto the Executive actions and kick the Chancellor out.

• One referendum per term only (currently six months), but I agree that they could have more than one yes/no question.

• The same question cannot be asked again after at least two terms have passed (more than enough to have a different set of citizens who might have a different opinion than at the time of the first introduction of the question).

[Sonja Strom]

In the Representative Assembly meeting today (April 19th) Gwyneth suggested that this wording be added to the proposed Referendum bill: "not more than one referendum per RA term."

Although I personally do not see this qualification as necessary I am not opposed to it, and so would like to amend the proposed wording of this bill to:
"At its discretion, the Representative Assembly may place a referendum question on the next previously scheduled ballot with a simple majority vote. There shall not be more than one referendum per RA term. The results of a referendum vote shall not be considered legally binding, but only advisory to the government as to the wishes of the citizens."

[Jon Seattle]

In fact, the CSDF is at the other extreme of the issue. We're strongly in favour of a representative democracy as opposed to a system that, step be step, can be transformed into a direct democracy. With the single exception of Switzerland, all democratic countries in the world are representative democracies (the Swiss are the best — and only — example that shows that direct democracies can, indeed, work, under very special conditions. One exception to confirm the rule!).

Not wanting to enter into the debate at the moment, I would just note that there is some variety of opinion on this within the CSDF. I, for one, think that deliberative forms of direct democracy (where people sit down to talk) can be a good thing for small groups. It insures that everyone knows they have the right to be heard (even if they choose not to exercise that right). I very intentionally integrated that form of direct democracy into the New Guild charter, later into the Cedar Island charter, and into some of my current projects.

The issue gets more complex for large groups, because referenda can have a very different, and more conservative, dynamic than deliberative forms of direct democracy. Historically I also notice that direct democracy can degenerate into mobs or moves to force conformity, but I think there are ways of avoiding both problems.

[Sonja Strom]

At this time I am not in favor of putting limits on the kinds of questions the RA would be able to ask the citizens with referenda. To me placing such limitations would run counter to the very concept of the RA choosing to consult the community.

Naturally I will consider this further, and might change my mind. If someone else wants to sponsor a bill that includes such limitations, I will not be against it.

[Sonja Strom]

Gwyneth, in the Representative Assembly discussion about the Referendum bill I have sponsored, we have a difference of interpretation about your wanting to add to it: "There shall not be more than one referendum per RA term."
This discussion starts here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... d=a#p11027

Did you mean by it, as Beathan wrote, only "one question can be referred per term."

[bjerkeleerie]

http://forums.slcds.info/posting.php?mo ... =1667#This whole discussion makes me wonder why we don't just make voting itself advisory. The people can vote and then the RA can decide on an issue based on what their faction thinks, or if the factions are in disagreement, the RA Chancellor can tell the factions what the decision is. that way we will have a democracy that never will be forced to listen to self serving citizens, and the government cand can do what is best for them. Snowball was not as bright as the others that were more equal anyhow. We can just have squealer rewrite the constitution and have Napoleon approve it.http://forums.slcds.info/posting.php?mo ... f=7&t=1667#

[Beathan]

BJ --

The referendum voting already is advisory.

Your process will not work. Our system leaves interpretation of the laws to the SC. Therefore, the SC will have to interpret this rule in the referendum process -- and if the RA disagrees, we can amend the law.

Further, it is critical that the Chancellor NOT have ultimate interpretation or lawmaking authority.

Besides, I'm thinking that we are more like Animal House than Animal Farm.

Beathan

[bjerkeleerie]

Forgive me I have sinned, and I shall pay the monastery another thousand indulgence for my latest sin, this time, the cardinal sin of sarcasm.

Of course my proposal will not work, it was meant as an absurdist proposition. Am i in a conversation with tweedle dee or tweedle dum? its is neither animal farm not animal house, but rather the red queen's courtroom, that I seem to have wandered into. The only question is who is the red queen. That and has anyone seen the gollex and what did it look like? (nothing I have ever seen)

[Beathan]

LOL --

BJ --

Wow -- that post was actually funny. Good job.

That said, you must forgive me for taking you seriously. Your idea, while unworkable, seems no more absurd than Jon Seattle's Quaker meeting proposal, which is getting serious attention.

Beathan

[Sonja Strom]

It continues to be important to me that Referendum Voting be allowed in the CDS. A Referendum would be where the RA would decide to send a question to a vote of the citizens in order to know their wishes on an issue.

During my last term in the RA I worked hard to arrive at some legislation to allow Referenda that would be acceptable to a majority of the RA. After several weeks of negotiations and changing the wording of my bill to incorporate suggestions from all four factions (DPU, SP, CSDF and NuCARE), it went to a vote in April of 2008. The only support it received was from the other DPU member in the RA at the time (Flyingroc Chung) and I, and the Referendum Bill failed.

Perhaps now the RA is more friendly, and I would again like to work on introducing a Referendum Bill in the hope Referenda could be possible in the CDS.

The wording of the bill I proposed, and which failed, was:
"At its discretion, the Representative Assembly may place a referendum question on the next previously scheduled ballot with a simple majority vote. There shall not be more than one referendum per RA term. The results of a referendum vote shall not be considered legally binding, but only advisory to the government as to the wishes of the citizens."

Does anybody have any comment on this bill, or any suggestion for how to improve it?

[Cindy Ecksol]

I'm trying to think of any reasons why we WOULDN'T want to have referenda in CDS....and so far I haven't come up with any

Cindy

[Timo Gufler]

Just think about questions where outcome of the decision depends more on taste than reason or research. If we were to order fruits for all the CDS citizen and had to decide whether people like more of mangoes or pomegranates would it be better if the Representative Assembly makes that decision or asks the citizens their preference using a referendum poll? Of course, the best solution would not be to make one-size-fits-all decisions but to let the minority have their pomegranates and majority their mangoes...

[Sonja Strom]

Timo, I like what you said. I also think it is important to offer variety of choice, and to do our best to include minority-held perspectives. Is there a way you can think of to incorporate this concept into a Referendum Bill?

To me it seems like a Referendum Vote would allow the RA to know how much of our community supports whatever question was directed to it. To give a hypothetical example, if a Referendum were held to accept a decision by the RA to sell the NFS Schloss to Desmond Shang so he could move it to Caledon, and the results of the election were 51% in favor to 49% against, then the RA would know that such a sale would be acceptable to the community but major concerns about it also existed, and the sale should be completed only in a careful way. If the outcome of the vote were that 90% of the voters were in favor of it to 10% against, then the RA would know it could go forward with the sale. I have to admit, in both of these scenarios not every single person would be completely happy with the outcome (although Desmond would be ), but the alternative would have been for the RA to make the decision on its own, and at least a poll of the community would have been included in the decision.

This said, I would like to remind everyone that Referendum Questions would only be placed on the ballot by a majority vote of the RA, at its discretion. They would be a way for the RA to ask the community about actions under consideration. Most such questions would probably be on major and/or controversial issues in the community.

Personally I would rather not limit the RA to asking only one Referendum question per election. What if there would be two important parts to one issue? This concept was included in the bill I sponsored last spring in order to incorporate wording Gwyneth Llewelyn wanted. Then she voted against the bill.