![[Jerry's Home Page]](/jhan/pictures/jdogs.gif)
Speaking of that cure-all, in our own backyard, there are cries for "direct representation of the people". Cries that government has become too bloated, too out of control, not responsible to the people any more. Because of these cries, solutions have been offered, one of which is the use of electronic communication to provide the instant answers. The solution, advocates say, is to use the Internet or other electronic communication methods to hold national referenda on a wide range of topics. Binding or not, these referenda would indicate the will of the people to the government, and then the government would feel pressure to follow suit. The government would be, once again, responsible to the people. Thus, we would have "direct democracy." At least, that's how their story goes.
Does the story make sense? It would be a wonderful thing, if it did. After all, democracy is based on the Greek phrase for "government by the people", and can you get any closer to the people then through "direct democracy?" The call is alluring and seductive, and it is a call that must be resisted. For, upon analysis, "direct democracy" is not the instant answer that is required by today's world. In fact, paradoxically, "direct democracy" has in it the seeds of totalitarian rule, far worse than the dictatorships of today. For, in a dictatorship, you can recognize the wolf. In a "direct democracy", the wolf is hidden in sheep's clothing.
The second problem seems simpler to solve. After all, all that is needed is a good computer program, right? However, there are security issues that must be discussed, and, a good computer program isn't even half the answer. Who certifies the computer program? How do we verify electronic votes? How do we insure that these electronic votes are the same electronic votes that were sent to the machine? In all these cases, the best answer is to get a computer professional to examine the computer program, or the actual network set-up. But doesn't this fly in the face of democracy? In conventional elections, any person with reasonable mathematical skills can act as a scrutineer, or even as a Chief Returning Officer. Not true with computer based tallying. As well, since the counting is done at the individual polling stations, there is a massive "checks and balances" system at work. In all likelihood, any scheme involving the Internet or other electronic means would involve three, or maybe four central collection stations. After all, the point is to make referenda cheaper to hold, and thus more common. One computer per each polling district would create an enormous overhead in terms of the time, money, and expertise required to both perform and certify the count. [1]
The first problem is worse than the second. Identity verification across various electronic media has always been a nightmare. What type of information would you require somebody to provide in order to ensure that they were who they said they were? Would you force people to access a WWW site to cast their votes? How do you catch fraudulent voting? How would you even guarantee that the person casting the vote was even from the same county, province, country, as the one that's holding the referendum? Pretending that you are somebody you're not is easy on the Internet, and one that hasn't been solved to anybody's satisfaction. Because of all this identity confusion, "one citizen, one vote" goes from being a nice phrase to a massive technological headache. A headache that would be expensive to correct.
A telephone solution isn't much better. Advocates state that a social insurance number and a PIN would be sufficient to guarantee security. But this has the problems with all "password" like systems; what happens when people write down their passwords or lose them? How do we get the passwords to the people in the first place; all you need is Canada Post to send something to the wrong mailing address, and you've got a major security hole.
Perhaps it isn't even possible to secure things, given the nature of the Electronic Media and the nature of the average user. In the end, it is up to the each individual to handle security, and individuals make mistakes. Is the person casting the vote actually John Q. Public, or his ten-year-old son James, who got at the phone when Dad verified his identity then had to go into the kitchen because the eggs were burning? [2] [3]
Thus, the technological issues are difficult, and expensive to deal with. Of course, this isn't really a defence, in the sense that, if Canada needs this system, the money should be spent, even if it hammers away at a national budget already in deficit trouble. But we don't need this system. Even if the system could be implemented, it shouldn't be, for Society itself isn't ready for the responsibility of direct consultation.
The original principle behind representative democracy was that ordinary people didn't have the education or the time to deal with all the issues that might affect them. In fact, they didn't even have the time to travel to the Capital to vote on these issues, for in those days, a good horse was the best they could do. Now, in this modern age, the travel restriction might be loosened (indeed, in terms of secure electronic communication channels, irrelevant), but the time pressures are even greater. How often have people thought "I wish I had more time?" Are people willing to take the time to be well-informed, to even participate, when their immediate lives are more pressing? [5]
How would people become well-informed, even if they tried? In these modern days of high pressure advertising, how could people decide what was factual, and what was biased? A suggestion would be to publish the facts and contexts surrounding an issue to be decided, but then how do we get this person to read the facts and contexts? How many people would just randomly hit a vote and go back to searching for dirty pictures on the WWW? Is this how a country should be governed? Even just considering the sway the media or shows such as Hard Copy, the view of the publics ability to be reasonable on issues comes into question. [6]
As well, there are issues which require the relevant information to be held confidential. How can people be expected to vote on military budgets, when much of the information in that budget must be held confidential? How can people be expected to vote on police oversight, when the police must keep its current cases confidential?
An even more disturbing possibility is the demographic being reached by electronic consultation methods. Participation on the Internet is by no means universal; in fact, statistics show that a majority of Internet users are white, male, and in their late twenties, early thirties. Thus, it is an easy conclusion that a majority of participants would fall in this category. This does not bode well for the "one citizen, one vote" concept, nor the idea that referenda participation is supposed to be universal. What about the people who don't have the financial resources to access a polling station? Would manual polling stations be set-up for them? There are people who don't have phones, of course. [7]
Finally, we must consider the distance between what people say, and what people want. In June 1994, a telephone referendum on proposed changes to Canada's Young Offenders Act was held in North Vancouver by the Reform Party. A charge of $1.95 per call was made, to help offset costs. The results? Only 6% of registered voters participated. The cost of the call may have been negative, but, one of Canada's political parties gave the people a chance to say something. The people decided to not say much. [8]
Let's assume, by miracle of miracles, a well-informed public universally participates in a referenda, is this a result that is democratic? In the current "representative democracy", there is a usually a moderation of views, as representatives will reach compromise in order to get enough votes to pass their measures. (Of course, there are exceptions, but, in those exceptions, its unlikely referenda would help either.) In mass referenda, there is no such built in safety valve. People will vote yes, or no, and that is that. A majority can easily force restrictive laws on a minority, which flies in the face of all that democracy stands for. Compromises would be impossible to reach, alternative views would have to be ignored, and any sort of common consensus would be lost. [9]
The answer to the question obviously depends on how the question is framed. "Do you believe taxes should be abolished?" will elicit a different opinion than "Do you think that taxes should be raised in order to preserve social programs?". In fact, in the Reform Party referendum previously mentioned, the overwhelming majority of responses agreed with their party platform. Coincidence or manipulation? Manipulation of referenda by those in power can also take other forms. Politicians can force a superficial answer by demanding an immediate response, and not allowing time for deliberation, one of the keys to a democratic system.
"There are other good things in life than democracy, and it can take up a vastly disproportionate amount of people's time," said Christopher Arterton, and that is true. [10] Government is there, so people can worry about the good things in life. Life is busy enough without having to worry about ruling. Let us choose our representatives, and let us choose wisely. Then, let those who have trained for it, and who have the experience for it, deal with it, and let the rest of us enjoy life. We have little enough time as it is.
[2] RISKS Digest has also beaten the problems concerning verification over
electronic media. For an example:
URL: http://hoshi.cic.sfu.ca/~cm/issue5/teledemocracy.html
The American Prospect no. 11 (Fall 1992): 41-45
URL: http://epn.org/prospect/11/11schu.html
Douglas Rushkoff
URL: http://unpsun3.cc.unp.ac.za/UNPDepartments/politics/econom.htm
N.B. This is a slow link.
[8] Taken from
The Recline of Party: Armchair Democracy and the Reform Party of Canada
by Darin Barney (Toronto) and David Laycock (SFU)
URL: http://www.sfu.ca/icp/Barney.html
The Economist, June 17th 1995, pp 21-23.
URL: http://unpsun3.cc.unp.ac.za/UNPDepartments/politics/econom.htm
and:
The Limits of Teledemocracy
Michael Schudson
The American Prospect no. 11 (Fall 1992): 41-45
URL: http://epn.org/prospect/11/11schu.html
by Rob McTavish
URL: http://hoshi.cic.sfu.ca/~cm/issue5/teledemocracy.html
Evaluation Form for this essay.