The Karma of Democracy

To begin with, I am in favor of democracy - in moderation. But I'm NOT in favor of the way we elect our politicians and approve (or disapprove) new laws or propositions. To be more specific, I'm not in favor of the "anyone over the age of 18 can vote and the majority wins" form of democracy (and I loathe and despise the Electoral College).

As a disclosure on this, I don't vote anymore. Nor am I registered any longer. I actually took the step of removing myself from the voter registration lists. My political affiliations went from Republican to Independent. When I was a registered Independent, it was the worst of both worlds. I got bombarded by all parties, but couldn't vote in any primary elections for any viable candidates. But it got worse and now no one represents the "middle of the road" points of view I tend to have. Since there are no candidates I respect, let alone want to vote for, I refuse to participate in what I see as a flawed system. Referendums are backed by special interests and it won't matter what my vote is if I don't vote for the side which spent the most on promoting it. The side spending the most money for or against a proposition wins 95% of the time. Go look up the facts on that for yourself.

I'm not sure where this puts me on the political/ideological spectrum, but the notion that a population can pass a law based on a popular vote is fine in theory, but it utterly falls apart in practice. There are several reasons why this theoretically good, but realistically flawed ideal doesn't really work. Many of them interrelate, but they can be separated.

The first reason is participation. In no election in US history has voter turnout been 100%. I'm not sure there's ever been a 90% voter turnout in the history of the world, let alone 100%. This means there are people who register, but don't vote. I don't get that. If you're not going to vote, why register? I know people die or move and whatnot, but still, the best voter turnout in the last 50 years was 63.1% of the voting age population in 1960 (before 18 year olds could vote). It's been as low as 49% for a presidential election (in 1996). But not everyone always participates, so the elections we have aren't truly representative of the will of the people.

The second reason is ability. I fail to see how a 60- year old functional moron (say with an IQ of about 60) can make a better political decision than a 180 IQ child of 12. Experience counts, but frankly, you have to be bright enough to process the dredge and garbage the politicians put out these days (not to mention the proliferation of shitty-smelling smoke screens from secretly funded special interest groups and PAC's). A moron can't. A genius probably can. Toss in the fact that people are often voting on a number of things in each election and you compound the problem. Those less able (or less interested) will not take the responsibility to educate themselves on all of their choices to make an INFORMED vote. Some folks utterly lack the ability to do that on all things they're voting about.

The third reason is human nature. Let's face it, Ray Bradbury was right when he said that Democracy can't work in a society that doesn't have the self discipline to NOT vote for bread and circuses for themselves (implying that they will vote to give themselves all sorts of wonderful things, but never vote for the means necessary to do it). This mostly has to do with propositions and referendums (see the last reason), but people, if given a choice between something that will feel good now, but hurt like hell later and something that will hurt a bit now, but feel a hell of a lot better later, will choose to feel good now and somehow think later will never come. Welfare, social security, Unemployment, Unnecessary declarations of war... Those are all things that feel good (or righteous) now, but really screw things up later.

The fourth reason it's going to fail, oddly, is communications. Today, we have a lot of ways to communicate. What we lack is a lot of ways to verify what those communications are telling us. Far more information is being thrown at people than most people can even hope to process, let alone make sure it's true, real and accurate. The proliferation of misinformation in the web and in our lives makes knowing what's real and what's not next to impossible. The rant I did last year about blogs, and about how blogs have destroyed impartiality in the news exacerbates this issue. Add to this the fact that politics has become a religion to people these days means that not only is the information biased, but there's not enough time in the day to verify the veracity of what is being said.

The last reason is function. Our political system is broken. It's broken because the rich have taken control. Left or right, they throw all sorts of BS at us to distract us from the fact the rich only want to get richer and damn anyone who gets in their way. (Sadly, yes, I believe this. The wealthiest 20% of the population control 85% of the country's wealth, the poorest 20% control 0.1% of the country's wealth, leaving the middle 60% a paltry 14.9% of the total wealth to deal with. Don't take my word for that. Go look it up for yourselves.) The wealthy select the candidates they want (it's mostly for the dog and pony show they sponsor we call Congress and the Presidency) and it doesn't much matter who gets in - the BS will continue unabated.

In some way, change some names and descriptions, this describes all democracies that allow "the average man" to vote. In good times, Democracies lay the groundwork for their own destruction when the bad times come (or at least the foundation for making the bad times a hell of a lot worse than they had to be). In bad times, extremism causes them to fall apart. Case in point, the formation of the terrorist group "The Tea Party" and it's acceptance as a "legitimate political movement" by the powers that be. (More about this extremist group in another blog).

The point is, while you have unfettered ability for any idiot on the street to vote, the whole system will eventually fall apart.

If each of the reasons democracy as we know it doesn't work were properly addressed, democracy COULD be made to work. And as a template, I look at Jury Duty - at least in concept if not actual form. With Jury Duty, a group of "peers" is taken from the voter registration rosters and are asked to be society's judge of the guilt or innocence of an individual accused of a crime based solely on the evidence presented in court. They vote to convict or acquit. Why not apply this basic idea - taking a pool of people to make our political decisions - to a greater extreme?

Looking at the major factors influencing the inevitable demise of democracy (at least in my humble opinion), one has to deal with them individually but with one means in order to create a democratic process which is fair, stable and unbreakable.

The first thing one must look at is participation. Why do people NOT vote, though they went through the trouble of registering? Because they can. It's that simple. So change that and make voting mandatory. The whole idea of jury duty says that if you are picked to vote, you MUST vote. Only incapacitating illness, or death, can get someone out of it. Make the penalty for failing to vote harsh enough to cause the individual moderately severe inconvenience. Make the rewards of voting better through social recognition and appreciation - a tax break or something tangible. But make it known that failing to abide by the voting laws will result in punishment.

This takes care of the participation part, but there are other things to add to this concept to make it work. Obviously we can't do this for everyone in the country. It's impractical to include everyone all the time. So, like Jury Duty, only a select few are picked. Enough to get a demographically representative cross-section of the population - based on the most recent census - which would be affected by the vote, but a much smaller, more manageable number. It won't matter if they WANT to vote or not. All must do it.

Now that we have taken care of the participation issue, we need to address ability. Some people are stupid. Some aren't. But the issue boils down to comprehension of the issues. Therefore, like in jury duty, a person chosen to participate in a vote MUST KNOW WHAT THEY ARE VOTING ON. They must be aware of the issues, the positions, all of the things that are in the voters' guide which are sent to registered voters before the vote is due to give them some idea of what is involved.

But again, we have an issue with ability, and in some elections, where you can be voting on dozens of things from the local dog catcher to the President of the United States, it can be overwhelming to a lot of people (usually about half of the population). So let's simplify it: no one will have to know about or vote on more than two issues in any one election. This keeps it simple for the stupid. And there WILL be a test to prove the voter has read the material and understands both sides of the issues. Once they pass the test, they're sent the voting forms or location to vote. The test can be done by mail or by secure website. If someone is too stupid to pass the test, they are stricken from the voting roles and will never be bothered again.

Now, by creating a demographically balanced, mandatory, focused voter base, it's next to impossible for people to be manipulated into voting for bread and circuses. They can't just vote for what appeals to them based on misinformation. They can still vote according to what they believe, but it will be an informed vote rather than one based entirely on bias. Not perfect to avoid the bread and circuses BS, but it is more effective than letting special interest groups sway large forces of like-minded politically active individuals into hijacking an election and unbalancing the democratic processes we have in the country.

This also helps reduce the misinformation out there. With only one or two issues to focus on, a voter won't be as distracted as one exposed to hundreds of other points of view on other issues.

Finally, these voters will be anonymous. They will be selected and identified by number. Each election, different voters will be selected. No one will know which voters are to vote on which issue. They won't know what markets to target, what mailboxes to fill, what people to try to manipulate. This makes it very difficult for the rich elite to manipulate legions of like-minded zombies into doing their bidding. And like a jury, it will be illegal to attempt to directly influence a voters' vote.

This will undermine the rich's ability to unduly influence the outcome of an election.

Of course, the weak points in this system are obvious. Who makes up the voter guides? How are the voters selected? Who guards the guardians? Again, I'd do this by jury duty. A Grand Jury style of selection. One per candidate/issue. A committee of 13 (no ties allowed) will come up with the voter guide based on the interest groups who submit their positions. Another committee will review the list of voters (no personally identifying information) - just to ensure it matches the demographics of the region which will be affected by the vote. They will review the census data and the selected voter's demographics and vote to approve the selection. This spreads out the risk of tampering with the system. It can still happen, but those responsible for the vote carry the legal liability of tampering. If they were found to have acted in a particular way due to outside influences, they will be charged with a state or federal crime - depending on the level of vote over which they had control.

This system is more balanced, less able to be tampered with, gives everyone an opportunity to be chosen to vote, demands that they vote if chosen, requires them to understand what they're voting about, reduces the influence of money on the vote and creates accountability to ensure a fair voting process. It also has the advantage of not being overly burdensome to people to "get out and vote". Voting can be done by mail. It will reduce the cost of setting up voting centers or holding votes in the first place, and reduce the financial overhead for strained districts.

Of course, there would be details to be worked out about implementation, not to mention re-writing the constitutions of every state in the union, but let's face it, Democracy in the United States is broken. I said it 7 years ago, and I say it again: The US is headed for a second civil war and most of the world will be involved. It will be fought by people who are tired of being manipulated by the powerful few. Maybe this idea, or one like it, will be picked up in the aftermath and put into effect to avoid the kind of manipulation of the democratic process we see today.

The only really sad part about that is how many people will die because the few want to control the many who don't want to be controlled. If our founding fathers could have anticipated the graft and greed humans would eventually come to regard as "normal", maybe they would have had more foresight in drafting the constitution. But then, the only thing they had was honor and a sense of personal responsibility. Both qualities which have been lost in the decades since their time. If people acted with honor and responsibility today, democracy would have stood a chance.