The Australian Ratification Party

The enlightenment has exhausted itself in the US Republic. The system of electoral representation as espoused in Madison's Federalist No.10 has proved to be gullible to special interests. This has meant that legislatures represent minority interest rather than public good. A new compact between the people and government is required, one that uses the wisdom and statistical weight of the voting population to overcome the limitations of the representative system.

Modern society is highly educated, has access to all manner of media, and is also alienated and often disenfranchised by the political process. These are the right conditions for an increase in direct democracy as a means to temper the ills, failings and special interest susceptibility of a representative system.

Ratification can be added to the existing Australian parliamentary system without any changes to the system itself. All that will be required is the establishment of a new political party: the Australian Ratification Party.

The Representative Systems

The Australian parliament consists of two houses. Both the upper and lower houses contain representatives who are popularly elected by an electorate. With the dominance of party discipline, the representatives are only really held responsible to the electorate at election time. This was intended by design in the US Republic and the Westminster system. It was assumed that a representative was better able to judge common good against minority interest. This has not been the case as party discipline, special interests, purchasing access and social-class have nullified this supposed advantage of a representative system.

In the United States, the purchasing of the representatives by monied interests has meant that the representatives legislate for a minority, often over the wishes of the majority. This has also been the case in Australia. The most recent pressure on the representative system was the Iraq war. Polls in Australia showed that seventy per-cent did not want to invade Iraq without the legitimacy of the UN. The Howard Government chose to invade anyway - without seeking approval from the Senate.

A Ratifier Representative

The Ratification Party would elect a representative to sit in parliament and convey the will of the electorate directly. Each bill that is put infront of parliament would have to be voted on by a section of the electorate chosen by sortition. This would ensure a sufficient statistical weighting of the electorate votes on the bill, while not over-burdening the voters with too great a frequency of bills. Approximately one a fortnight would be sufficient for a voter to take detailed interest.

The sortition process would be open to anyone in the electorate, no matter what their party affiliation. The purpose of ratification is to represent the electorate directly in parliament. Members of the electorate to vote on bills would be chosen from lottery. There would be the need to ensure some way that those that are signed up to participate are in the electorate. But this would be an operational issue.

There would be technological issues surrounding electorate votes on bills. Such as notifying those that have been chosen by sortition to vote on the bill. Getting the wording of the bill to them. Electoral debate on the bill. Also returning the electorates vote on the bill, and having that vote tallied so the Ratification Representative can vote Yes or No on the bill in Parliament.

The Will Of The Majority And Protection Of Minorities

One of the problems of a representative system is that it offers smaller point of failure if the public good is not being adhered to. The representative system in the United States has been co-opted by lobbyists and money. As a consequence, the system is subject to special interests and legislation is passed that directly benefits those special interests. This is tyranny of the minority over the majority. Having the electorate vote on each bill will stop this warping of the representative republic.

The flipside of direct democracy is how to protect the human and political rights of minorities when faced with the will of the majority. Australia has no codified political rights or protections from government in the Constitution, as a result, the Ratification Party will have to provide where government doesn't. This will involve;

A Ratification Party Bill of Rights
Complete enfranchisement in the direct process for the electorate

These two innovations at the party level will be necessary to protect the rights of minorities, and to give minorities a voice.

Internal Rights

The most modern of the political rights legislation on the globe at the moment is the New Zealand Bill of Rights . This document would have to be projected onto parliament by proxy, meaning that the electorate cannot pass any bill that would contradict this Bill of Rights.

It would also mean that the Ratification Representative, through the direct will of the electorate would have to take an incumbent government to task for any infringements of rights that are covered in the bill. This would be done by the electorate creating a petition/poll which would then be out out to voting within the electorate, and the Ratification Representative then relaying on the outcome of that petition to Parliament.

Abundance In The Community

Another means to avoid the vilification of minorities through legislation is to give them a voice in the political process. Currently Australian electoral rolls restrict voters to Australian citizenship, rather than anyone above the age of reason who is under the jurisdiction of the Australian government - especially taxpayers.

The Ratification Party would allow anyone in the electorate, who is above the age of eighteen to participate in the ratification process. This increased enfranchisement would increase the pace of assimilation for minorities and a consequent greater tolerance from the wider community. As these bills and process are debated in the electorate - at town halls, community centres, schools, parks and neighbourhood homes - the increased enfranchisement will put faces, and people to issues.

People are all good inside and will be more tolerant of different lifestyles when they see a real human being, who smiles, laughs and is a member of the community. A ratification process will increase the strength of the community, not break it.

Legal and Constitutional Advice

Legislation in the Westminster system is the domain of specialists. The arcane art of indirect language will have to be change to the simple and direct language of the community. This will have the benefit of making law much more readable - not to mention understandable. The electorate would be encouraged to vote no on any law they didn't understand.

Another aspect of the electorate will be the need to gather to discuss legislative issues, whether via internet, phone, or community gatherings. There will need to be access to specialists in law so that the electorate can give an informed vote on a bill. The Ratification Party will need to support some kind of floating table of judges, lawyers and academics that can make themselves available to larger community meetings, as well as to online forums, so that the electorate can quiz them on constitutional law that they are uncertain about.

Ultimately these same people will be taking part in the ratification process themselves and will add their specialist wisdom on these matters to the wider wisdom of the people. But in the initial stages, before direct democracy becomes a normal part of Australian civic life, there will need to be access by the electorate to specialists in these areas.

Creating Legislation

The Ratification Representative allows the electorate to have a direct input on legislation as well. Legislation can be created within the electorate and voted on internally to determine if the Ratification Representative will present the legislation to Parliament for vote. The legislation would need to be mindful of the internal Bill of Rights, as well as Australian Constitutional law before it can be ratified by the electorate to be passed on to Parliament.

Conclusion

Creating a Ratification Party will tap the wisdom of the people to the benefit of Australian governance. The process of Ratification and the sitting of a Ratification Representative in Parliament will give the Australian people a direct voice into democracy. An aspect which has sadly been forgotten in Federation and party political dominance.

There is no need for change to the existing Westminster system, as all the innovations occur under the Ratification Representative. This method of direct democracy can be grafted immediately and transparently into the current Australian political system at the Federal, State and Territorial level.

The ratification process allows for the will of the majority to be heard. The internal Bill of Rights along with complete enfranchisement in the electorate balances the will of the majority by protecting the rights of minorities. Many of the other properties of this system will become emergent as the wisdom of the people finds new means to organize themselves with a direct democratic voice.

To many Australians, we cannot imagine a feudal life, it is beyond our understanding and rationality. The day will come when future Australians cannot understand how an electorate handed over the process of creation and voting on legislation to an individual representative. Direct democracy will be the next rationality change in government, and a Ratification Party is the first step in this process.

cam

Comments

Scrymarch . # .

Mechanics: I love the intent but am confused about the mechanics.

Would the Ratification Party run for seats, or would it be a constitutional annexe, a trial for broader community representation?

The Ratification Party would elect a representative to sit in parliament and convey the will of the electorate directly

This sounds like the second, but other parts imply the first. I guess my confusion about all the other good stuff stems from this.

cam . # .

Parliamentry level subversion: I was writing this as I was thinking it, so am not surprised it came off as a bit hazy.

Would the Ratification Party run for seats

Yes, the Ratification Party would nominate someone to run for an electorate, and hence a position in the House or Senate.That representative would not be able to vote as an individual. They would only be able to vote the electorate\'s will.

The electorate\'s will would be collected by vote from a statistical sample of the electorate (5%-15%) chosen by sortition/lottery.Any bill that went before parliament would be debated directly by the electorate, and with the ratifiers (chosen by sortition) then voting yay/nay.

This is the vote that the Ratification Representative would pass on to parliament.

The other advantage is the process could also be used to have the electorate create legislation, which would be voted on the same way, and then Ratification Representative would then present that legislation to parliament for parliament to vote on.

This sounds like the second, but other parts imply the first.

It is probably a mixing of both. I am trying to slot direct democracy into the existing Australian (or any representative system) without the need for constitutional change. Existing politicians aren\'t going to allow any changes that challenge their gravy train, so the system will have to be subverted from below. The only access to the political system is through having an elected representative. So direct democracy will have to get in that way.

The other thing is, there will be no innovation at the constitutional or parliamentary level, so the innovation will have to take place at the Party and Electoral level. This is an attempt to create a system that will \"route around\" what is essentially a static constitutional and political process.

Did I explain that well enough?

Here\'s my thoughts: Warning: rhetorical questions ahead.

Your basic political party is an organisation for winning elections. To this end it arranges itself around a few abstract ideological positions, some traditional policies, and an electoral powerbase.

I like the idea of routing around current arrangements in order to create a more representative government. It\'s a very Westminster approach, eg let\'s not fire the Queen let\'s just ignore her until there\'s a new law to sign. I hope that\'s not taken as an insult :) It appeals as an approach that is incremental, it doesn\'t have the all or nothing risk of explicit constitutional change, eg the Republic. You don\'t really get the red-hot mandate required for forging new constitutions except in crises, anyway.

So the Ratification Party melds appointment by lottery with that pillar of parliamentary politics, the Party. Can this be done in fruitful combination, or would it be a conflated chimera?

You need a party leadership to organise and run for seats. You need salesmen who will put forward Ratification ideas to the electorate. Ok; but what policies do they put forward? This, it seems to me, is the tension in the enterprise, which needs to be finessed.

In the Ratification Party policy is set on a vote by vote basis by deliberative juries. Who is on the jury? Should it be party members, anyone that registers, or a wider sample of the electorate. Obviously the widest sample would be preferable - as a permanent institution in government affairs, I\'d almost like it to be compulsory like juries. But when the party is just being established, I can\'t see that working. I have visions of Reader\'s Digest Ratification Party envelopes arriving in the mailbox of the nation: Congratulations! You may already be a legislator! :)

If you restrict it to party members, you avoid any chance of hijacking by partisans. As I write I\'m leaning towards the middle ground (and mixing my metaphors). I envision an open registration process, like open primary elections in the US. You could even have the registered party member element. So you bring in a swathe of political tragics without having to commit to your party\'s affiliation. Tragics are the only ones you\'ll get at the start anyway. I think hijacking is part of the risk of lottery. Let the cards fall how they may.

Logistics. I see an electronic approach - discussion groups and mailing lists - as the only financially viable one to start with. This is going to make things seem elitist. Is email yet a medium of the masses?

Would you need a platform to take to election? The party mechanics, in terms of sortition, would not be under question. Should you run juries to determine that platform, pre-emptively? They would then need to rerun on the specific law presented to parliament. Do you think you could you rely on the novelty and appeal of the ratification approach? I wonder.

Since we\'re being hypothetical, let\'s say our party members vote as a block. Though the alternative where one jury is convened per member also appeals to me.

Finally, if a seat was obtained, and the support of the Rat party (Sort party?) was needed, voting simply yes or no vetoes negotiations and compromise, which are the essence of politics. I see negotiations being handled by the MP, as ambassador between the parliamentary parties that want their vote, and the jury appointed to make the decision.

Less hypothetically for a new minor party, how would you determine the Senate ticket? The precise order of preferences can be crucial, as Family First\'s able use of the backroom has shown. Maybe you could just ballot all the party members for the state.

Some more:

I like the idea of routing around current arrangements in order to create a more representative government.

Yes, it makes direct democracy transitional until it becomes the dominant human rationality. Hopefully in 100 years, the people of the future find it inexplicable how those in the 20thC had representatives in government. It also doesnt require any drastic transition so is more palatable, people do value order above all else.

I think it would require innovations at the party level to ensure tha minorities arent discriminated from within (and hence exterior wise through voting on legislation). The Party would decide the natural rights that a human has in a political process. One of the values would be, that if a party is too loose, or doesnt define those rights well etc etc, then people an vote for another party.

Since rights would be maintained at the party level it would allow for greater innovations to be done at the party level, with the repugnant and too radical being shunted by the majority by not having their representatives being elected.

As to who runs for the seats, eventually that would be by direct election within the electorate as well, using the same mechanisms that are used to vote on legislation and propose legislation.

So what policies? Good question ... inclusion? Maybe offer greater political rights through the party mechanism? If NSW, maybe; \"Sick of the trains not running on time? We give youa direct say in how they are run!\"

In the Ratification Party policy is set on a vote by vote basis by deliberative juries.

No jury. Direct vote would decide policy. But there would be a static set of rights, which is immune to be subtracted from. That is the party platform. I expect policy to become emergent. But not by jury, it would be all inclusive. I would also expect these things to be discussed online, town halls, community centers, home owners association buildings etc.

Who is on the jury? Should it be party members, anyone that registers, or a wider sample of the electorate. Obviously the widest sample would be preferable - as a permanent institution in government affairs, I\'d almost like it to be compulsory like juries. But when the party is just being established, I can\'t see that working. I have visions of Reader\'s Digest Ratification Party envelopes arriving in the mailbox of the nation: Congratulations! You may already be a legislator! :)

Yeh, if a Ratification Representative gets elected to parliament, then anyone in the electorate can participate. I see technology and low-brow being used. Phone, internet, etc plus people going round door to door to collect the votes. I also see think-tanks being set up to create new methods, technologies and the like to make direct democracy more efficient and inclusive.

Some kind of database of people in the electorate would need to be maintained to ensure that there wasnt electorate stacking by out of towners. In Australia this wouldnt be hard due to the electoral roles, but in the US it would be difficult. I would also allow people to register to be in the lottery as well as like you said, \"congratulation, you are a legislator\".

There would need to be a door to door process, maybe with follow up by phone to ensure the door knockers arent cheating. Older people may become disenfranchised with a completely electronic process, unless it was through the TV or something. As I mentioned above, I would expect to see think tanks established to attack these issues and seek more ways to increase participation and inclusion.

Dunno, have you seen the \"who should you vote for?\" on ozpolitics.info? the majority of people seem to be choosing the Democrats platform, yet who would know they have a platform? To most they are the Senate party that tries to keep government in check. They had success for twenty years with that perception.

Didnt think about the need for a platform, but i guess it makes sense, you could have a liberal, labour, nationalist, libertarian ratification party. But I dont see the party policy affecting the voting of the electorate any, they will still vote how they want. I see the only restriction on their voting being that it doesnt contradict natural rights which would be in the party charter/rights. Everything else is fair game. I would prefer that policy is emergant, rather than the monopoly of the party.

I would see party membership as only being useful for fundraising purposes. Not for policy. I dont see the necessity of party juries to determine that kind of thing.

No, no negotiations. The Ratification Representative can\'t horse-trade or vote. They are subject to the will of the electorate and can only vote on that basis. I am sure if the idea does take off there will be ratification party-light and ratification party-strong. But even so, I want the representative is reduced to being ceremonial, a vocal point for the electorate, but not a decision maker or political trader..

Put it to the electorate. A Liberal electorate would give preferences to the Liberals, a Labor one to Labor, whatever, I dont think it is important how the preferences go, it is more important that whatever the order, it is the will of the electorate.

Indirect Democracy: I\'ve been thinking more than my silence would indicate. It\'s a ramble, it\'s a sermon, it\'s a disagreement, it\'s just the vibe.

No jury. Direct vote would decide policy.

This is my greatest concern.

Strangely, perhaps, for a sortition nut, I don\'t like direct democracy. I think the Athenian Democracy was good for its day but lousy by modern standards. A large and crucial part of this is, as you say, a Bill of Rights, for the protection of minorities. I don\'t think it captures it all, though.

Representation predates Madison. The innovation (in representation) of the American constitutional settlement was widespread suffrage combined with genuine geographic representation. Parliaments already had a history, and their members were intended to represent the nation. The history of the English Civil War was well known to the founding fathers.

Parliaments, even, sigh, Parties, are worthwhile institutions. There\'s different social dynamics at work with different numbers of people, and it only happens when their in the same geographic position. 3 people - a close team. 12 people - a commitee. 100 people - a parliament, or a village. Useful place for horse trading. 1000 people - something else again; an audience, or mob, I\'m not sure. 10000 people - an electorate, or multitude. Through experiment parliaments don\'t seem to work with numbers approaching 1000. What I\'m saying in a roundabout way is that a parliament of 100000 isn\'t a parliament. (Geographic separation - 3 people - a messenger chat. 12 people - an email list. 100 people - a newsgroup. 1000+ people - a flamewar :)

We live in different technological times. It\'s now feasible, with widespread tech, and big statistical sample, to have a national scale referendum on every bill before parliament. That\'s quite cool.

I like indirect democracy, and community representatives; but the current mob are not representative. Which is where sortition and ratification comes in. Sortition puts people representative of the population in Parliament. Ratification ensures the consensus reality of the parliamentary village does not become too detached from the people. I see the process of ratification as a final referee, similar to a presidential veto, but with a clearer and less factional mandate.

I think the pace and detail of legislation is inherently too great to be sensibly weighed by a large electorate. Some delegation is required, by sheer division of labour. Mencius made the same point 2300 years ago.

Direct democracy mechanisms can be used well. The Swiss use Citizen Initiated Referenda to great effect. I\'m a fan of that system. But the Swiss are pretty civic minded, and that takes time to cultivate. The number of proposals are also an order of magnitude less than legislation.

Now, can you bootstrap a popular veto via a parliamentary party? The more I think about it, the less I can commit to it, because to do so you would have to be a sincere believer in truly direct democracy, and I am not. I would vote for it tactically. I would support reinstating the Queensland Legislative Council as a House of Jurors. I would support instituting Ratifiers on each bill. But I dislike systems that turn representatives into proxies.

Comments

Recent Comments

Most Popular

Recently Popular

Australian Constitutions

Worth Reading

More/About