For the People, By the People

Problems of Current Democracies

Corruption of Representatives

The main problem with representative democracy is that wealthy interests have corrupted our representatives. Representative democracy is what most democracies are now – we elect people who go off to a parliament to make our laws for us. To supposedly represent our interests. However, political parties, politicians, and candidates accept money from special interests to fund their campaigns. Those receiving the money expect us to believe that it does not change their actions and behaviour. But people see through this falsehood and recognize that something is wrong with the representative system. It no longer produces results that represent public interests. Surprising fewer people each year, it produces results that represent the wealthy interests that provide campaign financing money. The main problem of representative democracy is that it is too easy for special interests to corrupt.

Lack of Representation

Another problem with representative democracy is that representatives are not actually representative of voters. First, representatives as a group are rarely demographically characteristic of voters. Elected representatives are usually older, male, and members of the dominant ethnic, linguistic, and/or religious group. They tend to have higher incomes, are educated in a narrower set of disciplines (often law) and come from higher socioeconomic classes compared with the rest of the population. They move in different circles than the rest of the population, associate with elite groups in society, and live within information bubbles that do not acknowledge diverse perspectives. There are individual exceptions of course, but if we compare average statistics of representatives and voters these differences are obvious. Representatives tend to have different worldviews, priorities, beliefs, and issues that they consider important compared with the wider population of voters. Second, representatives do not promote the policy preferences of voters. This is most often because of the influence of money in politics. It can also be due to religious and ideological beliefs. Politicians need to follow party lines to keep their positions. Even greed and conflicts of interest surrounding their investment decisions can put representatives at odds with public interests. The consequence is that representatives tend not to represent voters demographically or substantively. Moreover, the longer representatives are in power the deeper their bias, corruption, and misalignment from voters.

Impracticality of Direct Democracy

The main problem with direct democracy is that it demands too much time and effort from everyone. We use direct democracy for referendums on topics. This happens when we vote on decisions rather than having representatives decide for us. However, doing this for every decision that parliaments make would be impractical. To be informed voters, people would have to read every draft bill. They would need to research topics they know little about. Then voters would have to weigh advantages and disadvantages to consider consequences of different decisions. There would be no end to this process and there would be a new topic almost every single day.

Politics is difficult, the problems are complex, and often there is no easy answer or no real clear solution.  Under a voluntary voting system so many people would not vote that decisions would lack legitimacy. Under a compulsory voting system so many people would become exhausted and have less time for other aspects of life. They would not have time for their regular jobs, family obligations, or leisure activities. This remains true even if decisions are made at the lowest level possible. There are simply too many decisions needed each year. Making everyone decide on every law is just not practical in large complex modern societies. The main problem of direct democracy is that it would demand too much time and effort from citizens.

Random Selection as a Solution

How can we create a democracy without corrupted representatives that is not exhausting or impractical? A compromise between representative and direct democracy is to use randomly selected but nationally representative parliaments. These parliaments must be larger than our current elected parliaments to achieve genuine demographic and substantive representation. But they need only a fraction of the total population to be truly representative. This means most people can just get on with their regular lives. It would be like jury service, but the number of people would be much larger. This is because the parliament would decide laws and we want a representative set of voices to consider many perspectives before making or changing the law.

Random Selection of Citizens

We must use random sample of citizens to create a genuinely representative body. To figure out the number of people needed for a citizen’s parliament sample we need to know (1) the national population size and agree on (2) a confidence level and (3) margin of error. We can use proven statistical survey methods to draw a nationally representative sample.

We know national population sizes because most developed countries maintain a list of their citizens. This needs to list every citizen, including the homeless, those living off grid, the elderly, new voters, incarcerated citizens, and newly naturalized immigrants.

The confidence level is the probability that our sampled parliament represents the whole population. The higher the chosen confidence level, the more certain we can be about the result.

The margin of error lets us choose how accurately our results will represent the whole population. The lower the margin of error, the more accurately our citizen parliament will reflect the population.

The size of the required citizen parliament depends upon how certain we want to be about the resulting votes and how accurately we want them to represent the population. The greater the desired certainty and accuracy, the larger the needed size of the citizen parliament. There will need to be a balance between what is practical and what is desired. But one thing is certain, this approach will produce parliaments that are consistently and substantially more representative than the elected parliaments we have now.

Random Selection Examples

Random selection produces highly representative parliaments. The number of people needed depends on the confidence level and margin of error. The size of the population matters less given the size of most countries. Once the population is above a few hundred thousand, it makes a minor difference. For example, using a confidence level of 95% and a 5% margin of error would require a citizen’s parliament of 380 if the population was 30,000 and 385 if the population was 300,000,000. The important thing for representing the population is that the selection be as random as possible without any kind of systemic bias. That is why we must maintain a complete list of all citizens and people selected must be required to serve.

We must balance accurate representation with practical sample sizes. The smaller the parliament size, the less representative it is of the wider population. The following three examples use a population of 9 million people to illustrate.

First, using a 90% confidence level and 10% margin of error we would need 68 citizens. We could then assume they would be within 10% of the population about 90% of the time. It is noteworthy that even a random selection of this few people would achieve better representation of the population than many currently elected parliaments.

Second, using a 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error we would need 385 citizens. This is more representative than the first example. Decisions would be within 5% of the population preference about 95% of the time. This outcome would be more representative than almost all currently elected parliaments.

Third, using a 99% confidence level and a 3% margin of error we would need 1842 citizens. This is large but still manageable. We could be confident that decisions would be within 3% of what the population wanted 99% of the time. This outcome would be more representative of the population than any elected parliament has probably ever been.

Legislation Voting Thresholds

We should increase the voting threshold needed to pass a law when using a citizen parliament. This would ensure that results truly reflect the population. We could then be more confident in outcomes. It would also provide more legitimacy to the system. The appropriate voting threshold to pass legislation will depend on the population size, confidence level, and margin of error. A formula to calculate this threshold could be the following:

Pass Threshold % = (100% – Confidence Interval %) + Margin of Error % + 51%

We can apply this formula to decide pass thresholds for the earlier three examples. These pass thresholds ensure that parliaments are representative of the wider population despite their small sizes.

First, using a 90% confidence interval and 10% margin of error, the pass threshold would be 71%. That means 49 of our 68-person parliament would have to vote yes to pass legislation.

Second, using a 95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error, 61% or 235 of our 385-person parliament would have to vote yes.

Third, using a 99% confidence interval and 3% margin of error the pass threshold would be 55%. That means 1014 of our 1842-person parliament would have to vote yes to pass legislation. Using these pass thresholds ensures that new laws represent the majority preferences of the population.

Multiple Bills Debated Simultaneously

We will need multiple simultaneous citizen parliaments. One reason is that having multiple parliaments happening at the same time makes it harder to guess which issues selected citizens are debating. This helps protect them from coercion and influence by special interest groups. There must be no public announcements about when parliaments will debate issues. It must be difficult for selected citizens to guess the issue they will be addressing. This reduces the chances of them doing their own research and forming an opinion. Multiple parliaments should begin at the same time. Selected citizens and special interests will be unsure about which issues citizens will be addressing. This both protects citizens from coercion and reduces the likelihood of citizens forming prior opinions on matters.

It will also be necessary to have multiple parliaments to get through all the issues that need addressing. Creating laws will require days or even weeks for people to learn about, debate the issues, amend the proposed legislation, and vote on the matter. In complex modern societies there are hundreds of issues that must be decided upon every year. There will need to be multiple parallel citizen parliaments.

Independent and Partisan Briefs

Selected citizens will receive multiple briefs on issues from groups with different motivations. The aim is to provide selected citizens with a comprehensive overview of topics on which they will vote. This means they will hear from independent experts as well as special interest groups on all sides of an issue. Selected citizens will receive information from people who have nothing to gain or lose as well as from people who have something to gain or lose.  It is important to hear from both because special interests will spend time highlighting issues that independent experts may overlook or not emphasize. However, special interests will be motivated to omit crucial details and present a one-sized perspective that favours their desired outcome. Selected citizens also need to hear from a variety of independent experts who can supply impartial and factual assessments of relevant issues. This includes analysis of the causes of problems being address and assessments of the consequences of different proposed solutions. Selected citizens need to hear from all sides affected by an issue.

A specialized parliamentary body and a different group of selected citizens must verify briefs for truthfulness and accuracy. All parties must be factual and not mislead parliamentary citizens on purpose. There must be severe individual punishments for lying to selected citizens in briefs or purposefully misrepresenting issues and facts. The specialized parliamentary body and selected citizens must adjust briefs until both are happy with the presented information.

It is important that the parliamentary citizens reviewing the creation of briefs not be the same ones that will vote on that issue. This is important because otherwise they will view earlier draft versions of the briefs that may have misinformation, falsehoods, and omissions. Citizens will thus have at least two sets of duties when selected to serve in parliament. First, they will review and refine the briefs for other selected citizens. Second, they will debate and vote on an entirely different issue using briefs reviewed by other parliamentary citizens. It is essential that citizens review the briefs. We must incorporate these dual functions of parliamentary citizens at the constitutional level. This avoids special interests or autocratic forces capturing and manipulating the briefing function.

Required Service

It is important that anyone selected cannot easily get out of being a temporary citizen parliamentarian. Otherwise, we could introduce systemic bias and the parliament would become unrepresentative. For example, poorer citizens may not be able to afford to take time off work.

It is essential that laws require all employers maintain the employment and pay wages while citizens perform their civic duties. We currently do this for jury duty. Employers cannot threaten termination, reduction of hours, removal of benefits, or any negative consequences for employees called to serve. Selection will not happen often, employees will not be gone long, and employers would receive sufficient notice to make alternative staffing arrangements. There must be consequences to discourage employers from trying to manipulate their employees from taking part in citizen parliaments. There must be severe punishments for both the employer and any supervisor or manager that tries to dissuade their employees from serving.

People that are not officially employed must receive fair compensation for their time. People caring for dependants or running their own businesses must receive enough money to hire someone to perform their duties while they are away. People without jobs must receive a basic salary while taking part.

The only permissible reason for people not serving must be medical or that doing so poses a danger to themselves or others. Three separate doctors must assess and vouch for those medical justifications. This of course assumes that the medical systems have been fixed to make medical visits free of charge. It must be difficult to avoid service and we must remove every potential barrier to serving.

Unaware of Issue Beforehand

It is essential that citizens only learn of the issues they will vote on after arriving at the parliament. This is important to reduce chances for biasing selected parliamentarians before they arrive. People could bias themselves by investigating issues using manipulated sources and forming an opinion. Special interests could seek to influence people if they announced the issues they would be deciding. They could launch propaganda campaigns to influence public opinion. Knowing issues beforehand could also make people vulnerable to targeted coercion and extortion. People would only be told they have been selected and given coordination details.

Isolation During Parliamentary Service

It is important that selected citizens remain isolated from people outside the parliamentary process while debating and deciding on an issue. They can only send and receive communications after voting on the issue. This is important to prevent extortion, bribery, and attempts to influence selected citizens. Even if they are secure, their families, friends, and colleagues on the outside are vulnerable. Their business interests, reputations, and personal assets are all avenues of influence.

Restricted access is also important to prevent selected citizens from selling their votes to special interest groups. Contact would have to be limited and monitored. People would be able to contact family and friends freely before their first briefing. However, once they know what issue they will be debating and voting on, selected citizens would have restricted access to the outside world. They cannot give anyone on the outside even a hint of the issue they are debating. This is for the integrity of the decisions and the safety of those involved.

The process must receive the full weight of national security and treated accordingly. The only exceptions would be for emergency matters of life and death. An independent public service body would function as an intermediary to manage these cases. As with jury systems today, there must be non-voting extra observer citizens present to step in should any selected voting citizen have to leave for an emergency. This buffer of extra citizens must be part of the selection process because personal emergencies are inevitable.

Additionally, selected citizens would not have access to the internet or outside media during the debating process. It is too easy for a manipulated audio and visual media or coordinated propaganda campaigns to sway opinions long enough to affect legislation. Selected citizens must remain in isolation from outside influences while debating issues and voting on legislation.

Considerations

Maintain List of All Citizens

It is essential to maintain an up-to-date list of all voting age citizens. Without a complete list parliamentary selections will not be accurately representative through random selection. The process would underrepresent certain groups, such as homeless and nomadic citizens. It is usually these marginalised groups that need their voices heard the most. Most countries maintain an electoral roll, but this does not mean it includes everyone. The list must automatically include citizens when they reach voting age. It must draw upon details from other datasets to keep details up to date. There must never be purges of existing citizen off the list. The only ways off the parliamentary selection list must be passing away or leaving the country and giving up citizenship.

Universal Housing and Communication

We must be able to find and reach citizens to let them know when they are selected for service. It is difficult to keep track of homeless people, those without a fixed address, and anyone without a telephone or messaging service. This supplies a justification to provide housing for every citizen. We need one fixed home address per person to ensure everyone has an equal chance of random selection. Then we need multiple ways to contact these selected individuals. This is a justification to provide a mobile telephone and minimal data service for every citizen. It ensures that we can reach every citizen by mail, phone call, text message, or email. We can adopt new modes of communication as they become widespread or replace older ways of communicating. Both housing and phone can be basic, and the government only needs to supply them for the homeless and phoneless. Making sure everyone has a fixed home address and multiple ways of contacting them is essential for having representative citizen parliaments.

Free Healthcare and Education

Free healthcare and education are important for ensuring the smooth functioning of a citizen parliament. Free healthcare is necessary because three separate medical professionals must vouch for people to get them out of serving. Charging poor people for medical assessments to get out of serving in parliament would pose an unfair burden.

Free education is essential for a well-functioning citizen parliament. People need to not only be literate but also think critically thinking, evaluate evidence, and understand causal mechanisms. This means tertiary education must be free like primary and secondary education. Education serves many functions beyond simply preparing people for specific jobs. One of those functions is to prepare people to make good decisions that affect others positively. We must ensure that everyone who wants a tertiary education is able to get one without taking on a debt. This includes both university and vocational tertiary educations. All degrees must include courses that prepare people to think critically and evaluate evidence when making collective social decisions. This means most people will be minimally prepared to be citizen parliamentarians.

Independent Media and Research Institutes

It is essential that media channels and research institutes be diverse, independent, and truthful. If we set up citizen parliaments that are harder for wealthy, powerful, and ideological interests to capture or corrupt directly, then these groups will turn their attention to the entire public body. More than already happens, these groups will try to manipulate public opinion in their favour. The media must therefore be independent both of corporate and government control. We must hold it to exacting standards of accuracy and truthfulness through a truly independent regulator that balances freedoms of speech with restrictions on deception, disinformation, and misinformation. Disinformation is on purpose and intended to deceive, misinformation is by accident or results from ignorance. Research institutes must be similarly independent and held to exacting standards while balancing academic freedoms with restrictions on dishonest publications. The aim is to prevent the manipulation of public opinion through media channels and research institute publications.

Irrational People

Concerns about unreasonable individuals making political decisions stem from a lack of understanding. When large randomly selected groups of people make decisions together, their collective decisions are usually exceptionally wise. People will politely listen to someone rant about off-topic concerns or voice their insane thoughts. But through unsaid looks, non-vocal body language, and conversations with one another will collectively agree that some people may not have the wisest advice. It is nevertheless important and necessary to include all individuals in the process despite annoyances or fears about intellectual or moral competence. Having a mechanism to exclude anyone could introduce systematic bias, marginalise certain groups, and reduce the legitimacy of decisions.