The "Build a Better Democracy" Thread

[dre]

How about voting twice?
1st choice vote and second choice but you can't vote for your 1st choice again.
Just a thought.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Yes but can't you see how these self-regulated industries would have it in their best interest to have these standards be as low as possible?

Multimillion-billion dollar lawsuits forced upon them by only the most vigorous of opponents haven't cubed this behaviour. You're talking about industries en-masse agreeing to hold themselves to stricter regulations and punishment than is currently being done by outside forces. Outside forces they routinely spend absurd amounts of money to combat.

They will be pressured to provide the best coverage (internal regulations) that limit the liability they they would be on the hook for.

Industries coordinating to keep standards as low as possible would likely violate existing anti-trust / price fixing laws

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Pay politicians way more. Their salaries should compete with senior leader salaries at large companies so that we can attract the most talented leaders.

There just aren't enough die hard public service hill rats like Steven Harper who forgo the higher salaries and anonymity of private service to get involved at a young age.

Most importantly, this would hopefully reduce the current trend of our politicians first going to get rich, then later seeking the power of politics and bringing with them the influences of their elite circles. That's one of the biggest complaints about democracy today.

The idea isn't to make politics about something to get rich with, it's about getting the smart people who were going to be rich anyway involved young.

Spitballing here, but:
Council = $500K/yr
Mayor = $1M/yr
MLA = $800K/yr
Premier = $2M/yr
MP = $1M/yr
PM = $5M/yr

imagine the taxpayer cost for their pay, perks & benefits, and more importantly, their pensions.
let's just cut social services to give the thousands of politicians out their that kind of money? you're not going to improve government just by throwing millions at a person to make that their only career.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

Any organization would be lobbied by industry and insurance, this isn't really different from it is now, at least now outcomes (ie damages & premiums) would be tied to actualities and not what a government entity decides to "give up" in order to win support.

Well the difference is we the people currently vote on the people who are being courted (by lobbyists and activists alike). To me you're trading elected officials (ie the public) determining public good versus the industry itself deciding what is and isn't ethical and what damages are suitable to account for violations. That has sweeping issues across all industries.

There are tonnes of environmental organizations that would sue (ie greenpeace / Sierra Club / ect..) They rely on big money and small donations, again nothing different. Public support for causes has never had higher engagement than it does now due to social media and the internet.


More Insurance companies! JK.... kinda. Insurance companies operate under certain regulation now so they need to be able to prove the have enough capital to cover their liabilities. In a purely privatized regulatory model a new mechanism to regulate the insurance companies would be needed. Or alternatively it is the aspect of government regulation left (although i dont think the system would be able to properly operate in the longer term if any government is involved).

The only way this concludes in your model IMO is that the businesses that are already in existence are the ones who make the rules on entrance into the market and boom every industry is basically it's own cartel.


There are some yes, and i was only giving a VERY specific example. But currently in AB only Large emission producers (see SGER) pay for incremental increases in emissions. So small producers are basically said stay under X amount and you are good no penalty, but its not ZERO. Any mechanism that financially incentivizes companies to move to ZERO is better than just saying stay under this so you wont get in trouble.

We can agree the current regulatory model is not the best, but it has proven at a minimum as moderately effective.

Well it sounds like you don't have that huge of an issue with current regulatory practices outside of them not being strict enough. I'm not sure why you need privatized regulation to have the target of zero emissions.


I disagree especially when it comes to environmental. Avoiding a PR nightmare (which is typically associated with any environmental issue) helps stockholders. By putting the onus on the public to sue for bad practices ensures companies operate in a fashion that best serves the people, not the government. I also dont believe that ALL for-profits will never spend more than they "have to". Will some? Yes absolutely, but these wont be large players (again going back to PR and stockholders), and will likely have to pay higher premiums making them less competitive and phasing them out of the industry. I have plenty of clients that purposely go above and beyond regulation because they know its good practice and will save them headaches in the future.

This is where I'm pretty cynical overall. Sure there are some businesses that will operate that way but IMO they are in the minority. Most business regulation is reactionary. An oil spill happens. It makes news for a while, the company battles off the usual suspects (Greenpeace, etc). They are eventually found guilty of breaching whatever issue and have to pay x fine.
They apologize, pay fine (which is trinkets), maybe start some "green" platform in their company to show they are trying, donate an inconsequential amount to various environmental orgs and a few weeks later no body gives a crap anymore. They operate business as usual as maybe some mid-level managers take the fall. And that's just visible stuff. In one industry. What about the finance industry? Lack of regulation led to corruption and backdoor dealing while people churned out useless products and caused a global collapse. And only a few years later we're talking about scaling back those regulations, because the people who own these large economic shifting companies don't give a flying f*** about where the planet is going, or where the economy is going, or human progress. They care about money and how much more they can have of it. They care about protecting themselves from personal risk while running companies on the edge of and spilling over into liability because paying for the deaths of animal species, or workers in factories, is easier and cheaper than adhering to current regulations, much less making them up for themselves. And we're supposed to trust these people to self-regulate?

They will be pressured to provide the best coverage (internal regulations) that limit the liability they they would be on the hook for.

Industries coordinating to keep standards as low as possible would likely violate existing anti-trust / price fixing laws.

What you're arguing for is legalized collusion, no? How is the society protected against these companies colluding and price fixing? Or shirking environmental or economical responsibility? These people hold incredible power with the people we elect currently checking them. How does it go when not only do the people not elect those checks, but they are provided from inside the industry itself?

Thoughts.

[Tacopuck]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Well the difference is we the people currently vote on the people who are being courted (by lobbyists and activists alike). To me you're trading elected officials (ie the public) determining public good versus the industry itself deciding what is and isn't ethical and what damages are suitable to account for violations. That has sweeping issues across all industries.

Originally Posted by MattyC

The only way this concludes in your model IMO is that the businesses that are already in existence are the ones who make the rules on entrance into the market and boom every industry is basically it's own cartel.

This is why it would need transitioned 1 regulatory body at a time. By limiting the scope it will minimize the entrance requirement to market. Again implementation will be hard and would need to be thought out, implemented and monitored carefully.

Originally Posted by MattyC

Well it sounds like you don't have that huge of an issue with current regulatory practices outside of them not being strict enough. I'm not sure why you need privatized regulation to have the target of zero emissions.

This thread is called building a better democracy, current the regulatory model is effective (to a degree that is debatable between parties), but I believe it can be better and this is an idea that I think could do that.

Its not they are not strict enough, it is where the incentive is that can be improved. I think a regulatory model should reward good practice over exclusively punishing bad practice.

Originally Posted by MattyC

This is where I'm pretty cynical overall. Sure there are some businesses that will operate that way but IMO they are in the minority. Most business regulation is reactionary. An oil spill happens. It makes news for a while, the company battles off the usual suspects (Greenpeace, etc). They are eventually found guilty of breaching whatever issue and have to pay x fine.
They apologize, pay fine (which is trinkets), maybe start some "green" platform in their company to show they are trying, donate an inconsequential amount to various environmental orgs and a few weeks later no body gives a crap anymore. They operate business as usual as maybe some mid-level managers take the fall. And that's just visible stuff. In one industry. What about the finance industry? Lack of regulation led to corruption and backdoor dealing while people churned out useless products and caused a global collapse. And only a few years later we're talking about scaling back those regulations, because the people who own these large economic shifting companies don't give a flying f*** about where the planet is going, or where the economy is going, or human progress. They care about money and how much more they can have of it. They care about protecting themselves from personal risk while running companies on the edge of and spilling over into liability because paying for the deaths of animal species, or workers in factories, is easier and cheaper than adhering to current regulations, much less making them up for themselves. And we're supposed to trust these people to self-regulate?

I do understand the cynicism associated with this idea. But again i truly believe if a companies bottom line is tied to how well the protect the environment (through market dictated premiums) the incentive is there for them to operate in good practice. You may disagree with that and I can appreciate you point of view as history has shown bad actors regularly. I would argue though history is not analogous to this model as it is vastly different from government mandated regulations.


Just as a side question, do you trust Alberta's O&G sector? We self regulate (mostly), the AER is a private organization that is given authority by the government.

Originally Posted by MattyC

What you're arguing for is legalized collusion, no? How is the society protected against these companies colluding and price fixing? Or shirking environmental or economical responsibility? These people hold incredible power with the people we elect currently checking them. How does it go when not only do the people not elect those checks, but they are provided from inside the industry itself?

No I'm arguing for markets to dicate the cost of regulating businesses based on the actualities of their actions. Why would insurance companies collude to keep standards low when that will increase damages that they are liable for. They would want to set their standards as low as economically feasible that doesnt open them up to liabilities and allows them to compete with other providers and still make a profit. Liabilities are not controlled by the insurance companies, its controlled by the free market of incidents and their financial impact.

[corporatejay]

Democracy is a very flawed system. I would be okay going back to some type of constitutional monarchy. Just need to find a benevolent Queen or King.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by corporatejay

Democracy is a very flawed system. I would be okay going back to some type of constitutional monarchy. Just need to find a benevolent Queen or King.

I'm pretty benevolent, I could be your king. Would you like some cake?

[81MC]

Originally Posted by MattyC

Thoughts.

If that's the bolded parts, I agree. Companies are intended to make money, which I suppose is all fine and well. But trusting profit-driven industry with the protection and betterment of people, society and the planet is, quite frankly, ludicrous.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

This is why it would need transitioned 1 regulatory body at a time. By limiting the scope it will minimize the entrance requirement to market. Again implementation will be hard and would need to be thought out, implemented and monitored carefully.

I'm not really sure what you mean by transitioning 1 body at a time. But, regardless of how you implement it, IMO the eventual logical conclusion is insane collusion and corruption within industry with little public recourse.

This thread is called building a better democracy, current the regulatory model is effective (to a degree that is debatable between parties), but I believe it can be better and this is an idea that I think could do that.

Its not they are not strict enough, it is where the incentive is that can be improved. I think a regulatory model should reward good practice over exclusively punishing bad practice.

Yeah I think we could both agree with that.

I do understand the cynicism associated with this idea. But again i truly believe if a companies bottom line is tied to how well the protect the environment (through market dictated premiums) the incentive is there for them to operate in good practice. You may disagree with that and I can appreciate you point of view as history has shown bad actors regularly. I would argue though history is not analogous to this model as it is vastly different from government mandated regulations.

Environmentalism is just one small piece of what you're talking about. What about incentivizing proper working conditions? Safety standards? Employee compensation? I think it works again in theory on a small business scale, but when it gets applied to real world market shifters, it becomes a different animal. Does WalMart bear the same responsibility as the government of Canada or USA to represent not just themselves but public good? From a theory perspective they shouldn't They are a business and should act in their best interest (which they do). But when that company grows to the size that it wouldn't be out of place in a G8 summit, I think we have to reconsider it's social responsibility to be beyond that of smaller businesses.

Just as a side question, do you trust Alberta's O&G sector? We self regulate (mostly), the AER is a private organization that is given authority by the government.

I honestly don't know enough about O&G regulations to really comment on how they are structured or implemented. What I would say is having many friends that range from roughnecks to geologists to heads of major oil companies (okay, those are my dad's friends), my impression is the amount of oversight they receive and the quality of the people doing inspecting can be suspect. Things like having one safety officer for what are unmanageable lengths of pipelines. I had a buddy only a couple weeks ago working on a rig as a geo, and a black bear is found on the property. They are told to chase it away before it damages anything. Two geologists. Chasing a bear. And I can say that, at least in casual conversation, things like that are often laughed off until problems happen. And then it becomes a mad dash to cover up any corporate responsibility.

I wouldn't say I distrust O&G as much as I distrust people who only care about money. And the way the system is built, it is largely those people who end up in high level positions of power and influence. That includes government too, but at least we as people have the power to change that through democratic process (as flawed as some may find that, those flaws can be changed too). If an industry is solely responsible for checking itself and our only recourse is private organizations suing them, they will only care if settlements they are required to pay outweigh the profits possible to be made by not adhering to the rule in the first place. And if the industry itself makes up those punishable standards? Well... Yeah I definitely don't trust that.

No I'm arguing for markets to dicate the cost of regulating businesses based on the actualities of their actions. Why would insurance companies collude to keep standards low when that will increase damages that they are liable for. They would want to set their standards as low as economically feasible that doesnt open them up to liabilities and allows them to compete with other providers and still make a profit. Liabilities are not controlled by the insurance companies, its controlled by the free market of incidents and their financial impact.

I disagree. I think they are fine with leaving themselves open to liability if the cost of punishment is less than the gain in profit. I don't think the PR issue holds much weight given how quickly we move on from serious issues. Setting standards such as safety, environmental, and quality of labour "as low as economically feasible" is not what should be getting incentivized, thats the point.

And on top of that, I think sometimes the market doesn't move quick enough and there is intervention needed. The environmental issue is a good one. I personally think we're at the point that the arbitrary money cost we've assigned to moving to alternative energy sources shouldn't matter. What should matter is "is it physically possible?" Not economically or politically possible. Can human beings do this with current levels of resources, technology and brain capacity. If the answer to that is yes and you believe climate change will cause the deaths of future generations and possibly our species, whether thats 10 years from now or 1000 years from now shouldnt matter. We can't wait for carbon taxes and insurance incentives to drive us slowly towards alternative energy sources.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

imagine the taxpayer cost for their pay, perks & benefits, and more importantly, their pensions.
let's just cut social services to give the thousands of politicians out their that kind of money? you're not going to improve government just by throwing millions at a person to make that their only career.

It would be very high. Just like wages are very high for major companies.

I believe that excellent leadership and the smartest people who figure out how to afford everything better than less smart less expensive people.

You are not improving government by throwing millions at someone. You are improving government by incenting our very best to run it.

[CaptainCrunch]

Sure pay the Prime Minister 5 million dollars. but during an election that party leader has to lay out in blood 10 election promises that are relevant. For every promise he breaks its a $500,000 fine.

Do that with every political and this will end things like over promising and then ignoring it once he won.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

It would be very high. Just like wages are very high for major companies.

I believe that excellent leadership and the smartest people who figure out how to afford everything better than less smart less expensive people.

You are not improving government by throwing millions at someone. You are improving government by incenting our very best to run it.

but many of them wouldn't be our very best. earlier you said you wanted young political rats to stay involved in politics. get them there young.

how is getting someone young to dedicate their life to politics getting the very best? you're going to have a generation of people who have lived their whole lives in a rarified bubble running the government, with no practical life experience or understanding of anything outside of politics.


some 22 year old kid was running for council in my riding. other than politics and university, he's not had much for life experience. he couldn't tell me why he could help the riding and the city other than telling me he'd work hard and learn the issues. I wouldn't trust this young fellow to be able to look out for the best interests of the city as I didn't believe he could understand the needs of the people in the city. all the book learning in the world wouldn't have him understand housing issues when he's still living at home. he wouldn't have the context.

I don't see how then potentially paying this kid $500,000 a year would make him better able to serve the ward. maybe make him a better greasy weasel that would do anything got keep that big fat cheque coming in as long as possible.

[iggy_oi]

Investing in education is the first step to building a functional democracy IMO.

Make it mandatory that at least one eligible member of every household vote. (If they can fine you for not filling out a census, they should be able to just as easily fine you for not voting)

Make any Election Day a statutory day off.

Male attack ads illegal and hold the media accountable for presenting misleading data. (Maybe create a media outlet rating version of the BBB?)

[GGG]

What is the logic behind mandatory voting?

Do you think you get a less extreme or more informed electorate? Or is people who vote a representive sample of those who don't vote so it wouldn't change anything?

[Coach]

What if any citizen could be nominated by any other citizen for public office, and if chosen, the winner would be legally obligated to be leader? Like jury duty but for public office.

Lets say someone nominates Bill Gates for president and the movement is forceful enough that the majority end up voting for him. He cannot decline and must serve his term a president for at least the 4 years and up to a maximum of 8 if victorious again.

Possibility of ending up with Kanye as president or something is an obvious risk.

And/or what if you had mandatory public service requirements like mandatory military service? You can choose to serve in the military or work for a public institution, but you have to do it for a year, or two years at least.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

What is the logic behind mandatory voting?

Do you think you get a less extreme or more informed electorate? Or is people who vote a representive sample of those who don't vote so it wouldn't change anything?

The logic behind mandatory voting is that party supporters, who support parties and don't based on actual issues, are always under the impression that the other side is evil, and the only reason they aren't succeeding is that people are too lazy to vote against those evil people.

I purposely don't vote all the time. It sends a strong message to parties to do something that actually appeals to voters. So many times we see the same major parties pressing the same platforms. Then once elected they don't act differently or commit themselves to actual change. It's sad that all the major parties are so entrenched in the politics of the parties themselves that we can't actually get anything done.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by blankall

The logic behind mandatory voting is that party supporters, who support parties and don't based on actual issues, are always under the impression that the other side is evil, and the only reason they aren't succeeding is that people are too lazy to vote against those evil people.

I purposely don't vote all the time. It sends a strong message to parties to do something that actually appeals to voters. So many times we see the same major parties pressing the same platforms. Then once elected they don't act differently or commit themselves to actual change. It's sad that all the major parties are so entrenched in the politics of the parties themselves that we can't actually get anything done.

Not voting sends no message at all. It just further enforces the targeted GOTV of partisans.

You may have inadvertently made a good argument for mandatory voting. We want a less partisan electorate so by forcing people who don't care to vote you may get a less partisan voter base and instead of GOTV and engagement wining elections you have to argue ideals.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tacopuck

Privatize the Regulatory Model.

[...]

I'm open to any constructive criticism of the idea.

The biggest problem is that if the insurance/regulators screw up, it ultimately falls on government to clean up the mess. As such, they are the insurer of last resort. This is why government needs to be in control of regulations, so that it's in control of its liabilities.

A good example is defined benefit pensions. When a company is failing (an auto-maker, for example), political pressure can cause government to bail out employee pensions. As such it falls to government to prevent companies from taking on such liabilities in the first place.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by GGG

Not voting sends no message at all. It just further enforces the targeted GOTV of partisans.

You may have inadvertently made a good argument for mandatory voting. We want a less partisan electorate so by forcing people who don't care to vote you may get a less partisan voter base and instead of GOTV and engagement wining elections you have to argue ideals.

Forcing people to vote for a party would just be straight up wrong. If I was forced to vote in every election, many of my votes would be write in joke candidates or fringe parties with no hope of winning. There's been multiple elections where all of the parties running absolutely disgust me. The last one was a great example.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by GGG

What is the logic behind mandatory voting?

Do you think you get a less extreme or more informed electorate? Or is people who vote a representive sample of those who don't vote so it wouldn't change anything?

My thinking on this is that it will put more onus on voters to actually educate themselves on the different candidates. I think the memory effect of people looking at names and choosing one would lead to a gradual increase in political engagement. If you vote for someone and they win, every time they make a decision and you read about it you’ll be reminded that you voted for them, regardless of whether you agree with their decision or not. IMO if you know you have to vote again you’re more likely to start keeping track of how often you approve of what they are doing compared to how often you don’t approve.

Originally Posted by blankall

The logic behind mandatory voting is that party supporters, who support parties and don't based on actual issues, are always under the impression that the other side is evil, and the only reason they aren't succeeding is that people are too lazy to vote against those evil people.

This isn’t my thinking behind it. To address that specific issue you could abolish parties and make all candidates run independently. But it still wouldn’t get people who don’t understand the importance of voting to actually get our and vote. Which brings me to this...

I purposely don't vote all the time. It sends a strong message to parties to do something that actually appeals to voters. So many times we see the same major parties pressing the same platforms. Then once elected they don't act differently or commit themselves to actual change. It's sad that all the major parties are so entrenched in the politics of the parties themselves that we can't actually get anything done.

Not voting doesn’t send a message to anyone, other than that you didn’t disagree with their platform enough to vote against them and you are choosing to give up some of your power to hold them accountable, by taking your vote away from them, should they choose to run for another term in the future. In a democracy there will always be elected officials. Unless an entire population of eligible voters choose not to vote, one of the nominees will be win in an election. Any vote that takes away support from nominee A(the incumbent) and gives it to nominee B is worth more to nominee B than a vote they received from a voter who didn’t vote in the last election if you assume that in order for nominee B to be elected it will take more votes than nominee A received the last time. If no one voted how would anyone even measure what appeals to voters?