How to deal with angry voters
|
Democracy
is the worst way to rule - with the exception of all other ways
(copyright Sir Winston Churchill). Apparently, Sir Winston's
appreciation of this method to come to decisions was rather limited. If
you would propose a partner to marry, it would be unwise to add: you do
so, because you can't find any better. Indeed, even the old greek
inventors rated this strategy only as the second best. They preferred
wise absolute rulers. But wise rulers are difficult to find. All too
often, their wisdom vanishes once they are in power.
|
In
democracies, it's up to the people to decide, at least during
elections. Some elected rulers turned into dictators and later found it
amusing that they got access to their absolute position only thanks to
the old democratic habits (that they have now replaced by 'better'
ones...). It is one of the dangers threatening each democracy, that
disappointed voters turn their hope to narcissistic personalities. True
democracies are always at this risc. The risc can be reduced by
offering better alternatives. Voters need a way to signal their
discomfort. Here is a proposal, how this could be accomplished.
|
One
way to signal discomfort is not to vote at all. In many democracies,
the participation in free elections declines over the years from vote
to vote. This can have several reasons. The optimistic assumption is
that more and more voters find out that in principle everything runs
fine also without their participation. It may, however, also signal
increasing frustration and the feeling that they stay unheard, whatever
their vote is.
|
A
clearer way to become aware of discomfort would be to count unguilty
votes. Most of them are deliberately disvalued by the voter, a clear
sign of general disagreement. Usually, such votes are acknowledged but have
no further consequences. A big mistake. They should be taken serious.
Of cause in retrospect they cannot be assigned to particular voters,
since democratic votes must be anonymous. We cannot simply inquire the
motives. But negative voters should at least get a chance to say something.
|
Unguilty
votes should be treated as votes for an additional fictitious party,
that was not on the list. To fill this party with life, we should
select by chance a representative (1) assembly of all voters (of those,
who had participated in the election; 2). They should convene and send
deputies to the venue that was the target of the election. If it
was a personal election (e.g. a presidential election) they should
nominate their own candidate (3).
|
Essential
to this proposition is the source of the recruited representatives.
Unguilty votes instruct only the quota of delegates to be assigned. The
delegates themselves, however, are not taken from the same source (the
constituting individuals being unknown), but from the whole voting
population. This reduces the risc that the selection process will end
up with a collection of egotistic personalities incapable to cooperate
with each other.
|
The
procedure will take some time. A first call for representative
participants to the assembly of 'random voters' may not be successful.
A second round may be necessary. We should invest this time as a
tribute to sound democratic principles. Under usual conditions,
unguilty votes make up only a few percent of the total. With a 'random
voters party' on the agenda, this fraction will increase accordingly,
bringing new life to an old idea.
|
At the end
of the term, the 'random voters assembly' has completed its task and is
suspended (it may compete as regular party on the voting list for the
next elections). According to the results of the new election, a new
list of random voters is drawn to constitute a new random voters
assembly. Since only a small sample is drawn from a much larger
reservoir of voters, it is unlikely that anyone will be selected once
more. Maybe, for the sake of true randomness, this eventuality should
be excluded by the selection rules.
|
7/24 < MB (8/24) > 8/24
|
(1)
Representative in terms of residency, ethnicity, age and sex. The
number of deputies to be delegated is proportional to the quota of
unguilty votes. Candidates who agree to participate are put on a random
list with considerably more positions than actually needed. Deputies
may at any time resign from their duties, being replaced from the
random list.
|
(2)
Each voter is obliged to prove his / her identity to verify his / her
right to vote and to prevent multiple votes by one and the same voter.
Voters
younger than the age of admittance to the function to be held must be
excluded. For logical reasons, also members of one of the competing
parties cannot appear on a list that is based on decliners of all
suggested options.
|
(3)
This increases the likelyhood that none of the candidates reaches the
absolute majority after a first round. If unguilty votes make up more
than a third, the second round will be between a new candidate and one
of the original candidates.
|