Gomery and Direct Democracy

Gomery and Direct Democracy
The Scandals go on and on


You would think that with all the scandals that our political parties have been involved in, in the past 25 years, the Canadian electorate would be ready for a structural change. You would think that the public would not accept to vote for yet another change of "party" as a solution to the political accountability problem. Do we not remember the Airbus scandal and the so-called Free Trade Agreement (FTA), and then The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)? Do we not remember Mulrooney (the Airbus Affair)? And then Chretien(The Hotel Grand-mere)? And now Martin and then Harper? What about the David Emerson affair? Does anyone really think things will change, and that the scams will stop with a change of party?

The system is set up as a pyramid. The ones who reach the top of the pyramid (our so-called servants) become compromised very quickly, to their funders and benefactors. Where their source of input was the "constituents", it is now the "party machine". Whenever there is a pool of money or power, the energy (or the individual) at the top of the pyramid, although being a basically good person, expresses that built-in corruption.

Do we have to keep stating the same philosophy ad infinitum without ever learning anything: Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. Power is vectored (directed) energy. Power, as directed energy, works well at the implementation stage, but at the decision-making stage, where intuition, experimentation, and tangential thinking are needed so as to come up with new solutions to the current problems of "structural corruption", the pyramid paradigm, that works well in the military and in capitalism, with it's "Roberts Rules of Order" does not work well. To make good decision, we have to be emotionally detached. We, the masses, not being part of the pyramidical power structure, are detached. We only become attached (ticked off) when our servants keep making the same gaffs over and over again, stealing our money, without ever offering any solutions in return. It's time for a structural change.

The Captain of the ship in a democracy is "We the People". We, the masses, not occupying the top of the pyramid, and being the majority, have numbers on our side. Rather that voting in a pyramid scheme, we can use a different paradigm like "the circle". We can empower every point in the "circle of the masses" through direct democracy, vote on issues, and let the wisdom of the many (numbers theory) rather that the greed of the few guide us.

Is it not time for the Canadian electorate to bite the bullet and vote for a structural change in the electoral process itself. Is it not time to vote on issues in a "direct democracy"? True, our servants will scream "bloody murder" and will not agree, but in a democracy, are "we" not the "master of the house" and "they", the servants "They" do not have any power, unless "we" give it to them? We do not have to ask, we just need to do it. For the past 25 years, I have voted "none of the above" (NOTA) and when any politician asks for my vote, I tell them so, and I demand that they count me as participating in the process. They have not yet, counting me instead as a "spoiled" ballots, but they will soon. Mine is not a "spoiled" ballot. Mine is a demand for a structural change. As soon as "we", because I am not alone, have the numbers, things will change. Then, "we" will vote on issues, including budgets, and remove "frauds and scammers", very quickly. Direct democracy for large countries was not possible until now. We now have the technology, we can do it.

Some will call direct democracy the "tyranny of the majority", and say it will never work, but I say it’s better than the "tyranny of the minority" we have now, and it already works in twelve states in the United States of America and Switzerland. It’s called "true", or "direct" democracy. Democracy, like everything else, is a living entity and has to evolve or it becomes corrupt. Representative democracy, our current system, has run its course and like a good soldier who has done a great job, let’s give it a medal and put it in the history books where it belongs. It’s time for "direct Democracy".

Our current representative democracy is a uni-dimensional or linear system with the right wing (.01% of the population) and the left wing (.01% of the population) at either end of the line. The "masses", the true "power" in a democracy, are at the centre, controlling 99.98% of the true power but feels powerless. This uni-dimensional system is being used in a society that has moved technologically to four spatial dimensions (i.e. computers, virtual reality, etc.) and theoretically to 11 and 26 dimensions (String theory and M theory of Physics). Representative democracy as we have it in most of the countries on the planet is a remnant of a system from the "horse and buggy" days, when the distances were so great that a representative had to take the votes of the many to a central location. We now have computers and the Internet, we can vote on-line and quickly. Quantum encryption is just around the corner. NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) is already preparing the protocols. There already has been one on-line election in Switzerland. The election was at the municipal level, to decide on a "money" issue of 5 million dollars. 60% voted on-line and 40% voted the "old way". Switzerland has led the way, let us not be the last to adapt.

It’s time for our decision-making process to speed up and catch up. We have to open up "Nota" (none of the above) and the "Abstain" option to make the system a three dimensional system, at least. Then we will be in a "consensus" mode. NOTA really means, "I care about the process and want to be counted, but the options presented are not sufficient, or rephrase the question". Abstain really means, "I care about the process, and want to be counted, but I will go along with the majority". An example would be: "I will vote for recycling. How we get recycling off the ground, I will leave to the experts or to the majority. I will abstain on the "How to get to Recycling" question.

Also, on questions of morality, are we not smart (or moral) enough to vote on issues like abortion, capital punishment, etc. If we are not, are our representatives moral enough to vote on our behalf. Can we not take control of our own house and put it in order.

Some states in the United States of America already have a "direct democracy" and vote on "initiatives" which are initiated and phrased by the petitioner’s, not only "referenda" where the bureaucrats or the governments phrase the question. These referenda are really only polls and are not binding by law, on our elected servants. The examples of government-initiated referenda we have seen recently in British Columbia were phrased so badly that it "repusled" (turned-off) the electorate from participating. Two such examples are the Victoria, solid waste treatment referendum and the provincial government’s Aboriginal land claim referendum. These were phrased so badly that one wonders if they were not an intentional act of sabotage by the bureaucrats and the elected representatives who really do not want "direct Democracy" to work because it would mean a loss of power for them. It would be "new" and "new" is always complicated.

If we are to look at direct democracy seriously, we have to establish some rules within which this not-so-new electoral system can function. For instance we cannot allow our tax dollars to be used to influence our vote one way or the other. Also, our servants, the bureaucrats and the elected representative, along with "interested" parties, can have input by giving the pros and cons of the issue. The electorate, as the master of the house, can then decide after due deliberation.

There is nothing that says that a vote on a specific issue can’t be "dynamic". Voting could start on one day and continue for a month or even longer, giving the electorate time to research the issue, communicate with one another or with experts and have the ability to change their vote until the agreed deadline. The election and the "polls" would then act in tandem. We have the technology, we can do it.

Another obvious rule would be: "Yes or No" questions are not permitted on an omnibus bill (a bill with many items, as in the Aboriginal Land Claim agreement". When a bill such as the Aboriginal Land Claim agreements comes to a vote, as in British Columbia, we, the masters of the house, must be able to vote on specific items and not just on the "whole package". On most items in an omnibus bill, most of the electorate would abstain but a percentage would participate and the issue would certainly be decided quicker than with the system we now have in place.

There are already "voting" software programs being tested around the world. Some companies such as Global Election Systems, traded on the NY Stock Exchange, have already done test runs among the American student population in the New York area.

It might mean thinking of our society in futuristic terms and seeing the structure of our society as a "technocracy". In a "star trek" future, science and technology becomes the driving force and economists, or the cost of things, becomes subservient to the imperatives of survival and the technological needs of the larger society. It’s time to jump into the future and not look back.Don’t leave me out there by myself. As masters of the house, we do not have to ask permission. Just vote NOTA and demand to be counted. It’s not as fast as a revolution but also not as violent and truly Canadian. It’s a slow process like evolution but we only need a few more votes to reach critical mass for the "quantum leap" or the "100th monkey". Is that YOU?

To quote Jean-Luc Picard: "Make it so".

4d-Don