Referundrums - The civil tool for civic decision making
When I buy a pie, there are no losers. None of the participants miss out, or are worse off.
There's no angst, contention or hostility, there's just one guy getting less hungry and another guy getting less poor.
I don't like paying for pies. If I could have a pie without paying for it, that would be great.
Simon the pieman gets sick of baking pies. I'm sure if he could charge me for a pie without handing one over, he'd be really happy with that.
Imagine if I brought all my friends to his bakery and demanded a pie, on the grounds that my group was bigger than his.
Or if he brought his staff over to my house and demanded $4.30, on the grounds that his group was bigger than mine.
That's what referendums are. One thing happens, in isolation; because the group that wanted it was bigger than the group which didn't.
It breeds hostility and frustration. It's divisive and mean and we can do better.
While it's true that I dislike paying for pies, I like pies more than I dislike paying; and while it's true that Simon dislikes making pies, he likes being paid more than he dislikes baking.
We want one thing, and tolerate another thing we don't want, in order to get it.
Ironically, we only have a relationship because we disagree.
How cool is that? He thinks the pie is worth less than $4.30, and I think it's worth more than $4.30. Since value is subjective, neither of us is 'right', but believing different things drives our relationship and makes us both happy.
That's how transactions work, and it's beautiful.
Referendums work very differently, and they're ugly.
Groups don't make decisions, only individuals make decisions. When we say that a group made a decision, we're actually talking about a tally of the decisions made by each individual in the group.
Tally's aren't weighted like decisions made by an individual. A member who is almost completely ambivalent, but leans slightly toward 'No', has just as much impact on the tally as a passionate zealot who would fight and die for 'No'.
It's far better then that decisions be made inside one head. That the antagonism between two ideas, (losing money and getting pie) be resolved by one individual, an individual who has to weigh their preferences.
If there was only one outcome on the table (I get pie) or (Simon gets money), then all of the conflict would occur between Simon and myself.
Since in a transaction, there are two outcomes on the table, conflict occurs inside my head, and separately, inside Simon's head, with zero conflict between us. (Am I hungry enough to pay that much?) (Am I willing to part with my pie?)
Referendums should be based on a transactional model, and require at least 75% approval to pass.
Drugs and guns are fun, let's do those.
Generally, and stereotypically, the Left want drugs, and the Right want guns.
Rather than holding two completely separate, viciously contested, highly politicised referendums, written by people who may have an entirely separate agenda, rolling back some of the prohibition on either drugs or guns; imagine a single referendum covering both - a Referundrum
Should drugs and guns be unrestricted?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Now, there's no chance that this particular referendum would pass. Too many people from both sides want heroin and machine guns banned.
There's no way it would get the required 75% 'Yes' vote to pass and would be a waste of time.
But what if representatives from the left and the right sat down to negotiate?
Not to berate and harangue each other. Not to threaten to storm out or flip tables, but to collaborate on a version of the above that would give each member of the public enough of what they want, at a cost they're willing to pay, in order to hit that elusive 75%
Despite being ideological opponents these representatives would be team mates, consulting on options to re-assure each other's adherents with whatever safeguards would sate their fears.
The actual referendum might turn out to be;
Should marijuana, LSD, psilocybin, bolt action rifles, shotguns and semi-automatic pistols be permitted on private property to those over 25 with no prior convictions for violent crime?
[ ] Yes
[ ] No
Can you imagine the civilised, polite nature of public debate this would generate?
Instead of two heavily invested sides, each backed into a corner, trying desperately to avoid losing; the voters would break down into 6 different groups.
- Those who want both drugs and guns
- Those who want drugs enough to tolerate guns
- Those who want drugs but not enough to tolerate guns
- Those who want guns enough to tolerate drugs
- Those who want guns, but not enough to tolerate drugs
- Those who want neither drugs nor guns.
People would search out the best arguments for the change they oppose, to see if they can justify voting for it in order to get the change they want.
For any change to take place, 3/4 of the voters would need to get more than they lose, driving the referendum into the realm of the transaction, and delivering a satisfying outcome to more people.
- If the left want voluntary euthanasia (with safeguards), they'll have to tolerate some capital punishment (with safeguards)
- If the right want caning in schools, they'll have to also vote for mandatory vegetarian lunches, guided meditation, or whatever else the left want to see badly enough to tolerate bringing back the cane.
Maybe there are no safeguards or vegan menus that would compel the left to tolerate corporal or capital punishment; if so, any such referendum would fail, and at least demonstrate to the right the depth of concern the left carry for those practices.
Somebody who votes against your reform when it costs them nothing might just be casually dismissive, or spiteful; but somebody who rejects your preferred change at the cost of their own is clearly passionately against it.
You may disagree with their conclusions, but you have to at least respect their determination, and can take solace in the fact that shooting you down cost them something they would have liked.
Even failed referendums would then build respect and empathy in the community. A 'No' vote would be considered a failure on the part of the authors/figureheads to correctly gauge the strength of feeling within their camps and a lesson for the next referendum; while both changes after a successful vote would be more warmly accepted in light of such a clear mandate from so many of the public.
Is this all mine, or has it come up before? I tried searching for it, but couldn't find anything.
Would it work? Am I missing something?
As always, have a great day.
I enjoy the fact that you confront your audience, not just speak at them.
So while I follow the logic and the point your getting to, compromise and discussion, I think there is something you may be missing.
What if I said you have the full right to your drugs AND your guns, eh..eh? The role of government and its authority shouldn't have full reign over either. Punish the whole population because of the actions of few is not the way it was meant to be. We are supposed to be free. We are supposed to take responsibility for our own actions as well.
However, we are so far from that and forced to compromise within a box for each piece of our pie when we can make our own! =D
Sorry for the diatribe but I thought it should be mentioned. Now as you mentioned the referendum, I'm also assuming you mean Catalona? From what I understand of that situation is that they are trying to break free of the monarchy there in attempts to establish itself. I fear that may not come without bloodshed.
Hey mate. Top points and kind words.
I'm full ancap/voluntaryist, so it's hard to bring myself to make a suggestion based on the current system. I've done so here for the sake of the concept, to make it as thoroughly understood as possible.
I looked at basing it on voluntary associations like a sporting club, but couldn't get the analogy right.
As a group decision making tool it definitely has scope outside of a state based model.
I wasn't thinking of Catalonia, more the gay marriage plebiscite here in Australia.
I haven't looked at Catalonia closely, but naturally secession is typically a good thing.
My mistake. Based on the left and right paradigm in conjunction with guns and drugs, I assumed you were speaking of U.S. politics. That what I get for not checking your locale!
I think my basic point remains however. Functioning inside of a box instead of simply finding another spot in the warehouse seems to be the answer. I'm not up do date on Aussie politics, so I can't speak much on them.
I like your reasoning; food for thought. Certainly a step up from the current set up, but I agree with @jinmi17 that it's still not true freedom and we're still bowing to others. We should be free to do whatever we choose as long as it harms no one else. It's about time we rose above trying to force others to our way of thinking.
I absolutely agree. We should be careful to draw distinctions though, or we'll continue to stay niche.
A referendum is a way for a group to make a decision. Might be a barbershop quartet, or a church, or a football team.
A referundrum is a better way to run referendums. I assumed the existence of a state in my examples to keep it relevant to the readers' current worldview; but there's nothing stopping a completely voluntary group from using the mechanism to make decisions.
I'm actually really enjoying all the anti-government responses though; warms the cockles, it does :)
Haha! Cockle warming until a dictatorship starts and they come for you!
I think groups would certainly be more capable of making decisions in this way to benefit the most amounts of members. This has got me thinking much more about respect for all choices.
You do put an interesting spin on things @mattclarke. I've not thought of referendums this way. I just think they are a massive joke most of the time in terms of how much money government's waste on them. Plus I mostly just want Qld to get daylight savings, which never happens.
Also, I enjoyed all the Supernatural gifs. Good show.
You just got yourself a reputation as a cow confuser; @moogirl :)
Lol. I can live with that! 🐄🐄🐄
Excellent article, in any referendum there will always be different opinions and opinions on the essence of the problem. The only thing, in my opinion, which side won, should always find a common language with less and find a compromise. Thank you @mattclarke
Unfortunately as the world worsens, so too do the chances of negotiations to better laws and the way the laws and business are done. But I agree that there should be a change dealing with something like 75% to agree on negotiated terms for said laws or business deals etc.
Also, they must have pies, we demand a free meat pie! Haha, well us Aussies do love our meat pies and maybe parliament needs a pie day! ;)
Well said article mate.
I could see this completely replacing them; so it'll never happen.
We'll invite them to the casino for a pie floater, then hit them with cream pies instead.
A couple of problems I see here. Which issues go up against which other issues? And who would get to choose? For example, you chose drugs vs guns. How is a substance that is dangerous only to the person consuming it comparable to one which is a danger to both user and others?
Second, but related, is that not all ideas are equal; many are beyond the pale. For example, would we allow a referendum that raises the minimum wage in return for allowing slavery? Or perhaps one which raises education standards in exchange for making some child porn legal?
Sure, you say that if we don't want child porn then there will be no concession that will pass the vote. So does that mean that we don't raise education standards? Would linking a good cause with an unconscionable one be a handy way to scuttle a good proposal?
Horse-trading between two unrelated issues, each one holding the other to ransom, would not get rid of partisanship, it will not stop the parties from dehumanising and haranguing each other. One of the biggest problems in today's politics is the inability to reach consensus, or even to make concessions in ONE issue. Throwing extra issues into the mix would muddy things even more. There would be more opportunities for US-style pork-barrelling (I will support your amendment if you include my totally unrelated demand in the bill).
So, yeah, I think we just need to look at one issue at a time; work out what is best, not necessarily what will please everyone.
Thanks for a well considered response.
The issues you raise are endemic to politics.
I disagree that this would make that worse (I can't picture how it could be worse)
'Representatives' can be bribed to vote against their constituents' best interests; but if the voting is done directly by the public (or 'members' if we want to remove it from the statists backdrop) its not an issue.
If we attach huge direct benefits to the authors of a successful referendum; while punishing the authors of unsuccessful ones, nobody's going to deliberately pen a dud.
Maybe some sort of escrow.
Crowd fund a $10 million bounty.
To publish their referendum, a group needs to add another $10 million.
Get over 75% and win the full $20 mill, get under and lose your $10 mill.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree a bit. Bringing money into it only makes things worse. Money poisons everything. The point of the exercise immediately shifts from making good laws, to making whatever laws will bring a profit.
You say that no one will pen a dud if there's 10mil at stake. I say that if you set up a system to gamify law making (as in the scoreboard is now about a number, not about the issues), then people will quickly find ways to game it.
You know who would pen a dud? Billionaires who could afford to treat it like a slot machine. (See the case of "angel investors" who routinely gamble hair-raising amounts of money on the premise that, perhaps only one in twenty of their projects will return anything at all, but one unicorn will wipe out those losses.) The poor, disadvantaged, disabled, etc. would have to stake everything to get a law passed. The rich already buy out our representatives, this would just make it legal. Billionaires would be negotiating dozens of initiatives at a time, against others who have a lot more to lose. It wouldn't be anywhere near a level playing field.
I really don't think there is any short-cut to carefully considering issues on their own merits. Which isn't to say that I think our current corrupt, casino capitalism is anywhere near a good solution - don't mistake me for a status quoist.
I think the answer is a shift at a more fundamental level (does that make me a fundamentalist? :-O) We need a change in ethics, where it's no longer OK to screw people over in the name of competition or progress or whatever other excuse is trotted out. We need complete transparency of information - no commercial in confidence rubbish being used to keep people in the dark about who is taking kickbacks from whom. I was reading an interesting example of this today (story from the US): "the prices charged by operators to schools had to be public. That price data broke the market open: Across the country, schools that used to be paying $22 per Mbps as recently as 2013 are now paying $4.90, just because they can pick up the phone and point out that other schools are paying less for the same services." (https://www.wired.com/story/comcast-is-abandoning-customers-in-the-name-of-free-speech/?mbid=nl_100417_backchannel_p5)
Have you heard of the Cicada Project? Basically, direct democracy via blockchain. http://iamcicada.com/ You might find it interesting.
So, yeah, that's a bit of stuff: tl;dr version:
Yes, I'm trying to shoehorn the idea in to our current system; but the rife corruption we already have is contaminating the concept.
Let's try this.
There's a seastead, a million people have secured a berth, and they're looking for a system of governance.
Any resident or group of residents can author a referendum or referundrum, which the system distributes to 1000 randomly chosen residents.
If it fails, the author loses the ability to vote in the next 10 referendums/referundrums.
If more than 750 of them give it a 'Yes', then it goes to the full million.
If it gets the 'yes', it's adopted as official policy.
Cicada project looks interesting. Gave it a skim, will read up on it more.
This post received a 20% vote by @mrsquiggle courtesy of @choogirl from the Minnow Support Project ( @minnowsupport ). Join us in Discord.
Upvoting this comment will help support @minnowsupport.
I realise it's not a referendum but I honestly thought this was headed towards the equal marriage "survey". Because you're sure right about one thing - they produce a whole lot of hate.
@mattclarke You have an interesting take on the whole idea of referendum though. Linking two issues supported by opposite sides to create a balanced approach to each issue sounds like a great idea. Can I just have some further clarification on this transaction model of 75% approval?
I pulled 75% out of thin air; its not based on anything specific.
I considered running a poll here, but most of my friends are ancaps; which wouldn't give a fair indication of how the voting public would go.
Is 75% too ambitious?
Ahh sure! I went googling to figure out what I was missing.
75% does seem overly ambitious, however that would probably be a good thing to make sure that a vast majority thought the proposed changes were fair. I was thinking though that it might end up making the changes too negligible for both sides to count it as a victory.
It'd be a complex system as both sides would have to be able to justify the compromises to their own morals vs the compromises made to their own agendas. Then they'd have to compete with those who want neither option - this is where I see the 75% as a possible issue. But I honestly don't know, with a bit of tweaking I'm sure it would work!
I'm pretty tired, sorry if this didn't make much sense.
All good, mate. Makes perfect sense. If it fails to get up, nothing changes.
That kind of stability is good, helps people plan for stuff.
At 75%, changes would only happen if they were genuinely popular, across a wide spectrum of political orientations.
Congratulations @mattclarke! You have completed some achievement on Steemit and have been rewarded with new badge(s) :
Click on any badge to view your own Board of Honor on SteemitBoard.
For more information about SteemitBoard, click here
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPReferendums and democracy in general are no way to run a society. As the old adage goes, it’s like two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.
Government is no way to run society, democratic or otherwise.
Referendums are just a way for a group to make a decision.
Don't throw the baby out with the bath water ;)
Haha, we are on the same page. It can be so difficult trying to get your point across when speaking with a like minded political person like yourself vs. a statist because you and I can differentiate the difference between a govt sanctioned referendum vs a voluntary association referendum. I was referring to what we have in my area, city referendums. Where you vote (or don't) and the most votes to yay or nay make the decision. These are the bad referendums obviously due to the nature of it being associated with government.
No issues on my end with voluntary association referendums. I felt the need to clarify because I just gave my daughter a bath and couldn't fathom throwing her out ;)
I like your animation @mattclarke
Not my content, it's all from the TV show Supernatural.