It looks like Long Beach is a model for where the whole country is headed.
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004, Joe Weinstein wrote: > > I don't have much time for most ins and outs on this list (or others), but > was delighted to read James' stimulatingly-argued detailed proposal for a > 'non-binding direct democracy system'. > > Rather than run to endorse or reject this single proposal (as it stands or > as it gets amended), I think it would be wise to ask just what objectives it > would achieve, and - even more important - what objectives it's aimed at, > and then what our other options may include for realizing them. > > In particular, as James indicates, we badly do need more and better citizen > participation, and James is quite right: it is not fair - and it is also not > necessary - that citizen opinion should have to be filtered through an > entrenched oligarchy of a few 'representatives'. > > In interests of accuracy and relevance I do take issue with some statements > made pro or con the proposal. > > First, in order to learn where the public stands, there is nothing wrong > with properly conducted opinion polling. Potentially tremendous expense and > bother may be saved, and reasonable and useful accuracy may be achieved. > It's been done in effect even by the Census Bureau as well as many > nongovernment organizations. And, altho contrary to most people's > intuitions, it's very basic statistical theory that when you are truly > randomly polling a large population, your accuracy in determining a > proportion P (namely, of the citizens who prefer YES rather than NO on a > given question) has almost nothing to do with the size of FRACTION of the > population being sampled, but just of the ABSOLUTE number being sampled. > The accuracy you can expect by sampling 1,000 out of 100,000,000 is > negligibly worse than what you get by sampling 1,000 out of 10,000. The > number 1,000 fairly well guarantees getting within 3% of the right answer in > 95% of the cases, and almost inevitably within 5% - no matter how small > 1,000 is as a fraction of total population. > > But suppose that on a given issue your aim is that the sampled individuals > represent especially deliberative and informed opinion - untypical of most > hitherto uninvolved citizens, but clearly called for in responsible > decision-making. Then there is every reason to use randomly selected citizen > study and advisory juries (in the manner already demonstrated and used by > the Jefferson Foundation) for advice and opinion on various public > questions. > > Second, I don't see the point of some banter on the proper election method > to use in the proposed referenda. If a referendum is NON-binding, for the > purpose of INFORMING public and politicos, then what counts is the press' > careful summaries of the data by whatever means (I hope several) that they > might be induced (by conscientious political scientists??) to use - and not > your (or the government's) pick of the single 'true winner' by an annointed > 'ideal' election method. > > Offhand, for the sake of sufficient but manageable depth and complexity, it > seems that a workable referendum question might best ask the public to rate > or rank somewhere between three and five alternatives. A 5 x 5 pairwise > matrix (not more), plus other summary info, just might be comprehensible to > participants, press, and summary-reading public and pols. > > As both Ernie and James note, a key issue is the method by which issues and > alternatives are agendized and organized for referenda or polls. As Ernie > points out, some university departments would have credibility. Mandated > issues or positions should include those submitted by initiative - of > sufficiently many citizens or of sufficiently many legislators. > > My main carp with the proposal - but not specifically with just this > proposal - is that in itself it does not go very far to realize what I deem > REAL 'direct' democracy. (In itself, it would improve on where we ae now, > but we should not exaggerate what it would achieve.) For me real democracy > does not mean mass elections or referenda wherein individual votes are > powerless. What's really called for is not lots of voting but good > decision-making. The prime legitimate purpose of government is not > elections or voting (and still less offices) but deliberative policy > decision-making. > > For me, genuine 'democracy' and just plain good sense in public > decision-making BOTH argue for sharing as widely as we can, as equally as > possible among all citizens (certainly among all the many citizens who are > willing and able), the key task (in both its powers and burdens) of > DELIBERATIVE public policy DECISION-making. This calls for > 'representative' democracy, if you like, but where the representatives > aren't the same bunch of overworked or over-pampered oligarchs (elected, but > oligarchs) for decision after decision after decision. > > It's really not a very arcane issue: Why should we continue the practice of > concentrating decision power so as to stimulate case after case of Lord > Acton's dictum that 'power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts > absolutely'? Each well-deliberated decision requires special attention from > relatively few people but why should myriad decisions over extended time be > hogged by or dumped on the same few people? > > Yes, I know, randomly picked juries (alias teams, panels, assemblies) don't > seem interesting here, because you don't have to use interesting (or any) > mass election methods to choose them. However, for jury choice there's > plenty of room for various Proportional Representation considerations - > known in the statistical trade as proportional-allocation stratification > schemes. Also, there is plenty of use for election methods used internally > within larger juries (whose sizes may be in the hundreds) to help them come > to good and well-accepted collective decisions. > > And, if random choices (simple, or stratified random P.R.) are not your > thing, OK, suggest another valid and unbiased and maybe sexier method to > recruit a large number of people to a bit of interesting and empowered > responsible public service - which is what democracy is about. > > James and Ernie and everyone - thanks for the provocative proposals and > comments! > > Joe Weinstein > Long Beach CA USA > > > P.S. (for those with a lot of patience): > > >From my local vantage of the last twelve years - Long Beach, California - > James' proposal (like some other ideas here on this list) has (with no shame > or blame on James) another big inherent defect. > > Namely, the proposal is based on the presumption that politicians would want > to know and maybe even heed what the public wants - or anyhow thinks it > wants. > > That's definitely not true in this town. > > Most outsiders know Long Beach - a town of a half million people > (California's fifth city - after LA, SD, SJ, SF) - for its touristic veneer > which features a famous old (and in fact mismanaged and mistreated) ocean > liner, a boondoggle convention center and aquarium, and remnants of a once > excellent namesake beach. But in recent decades and right now, whether from > ignorance or connivance, our local politicians have been mainly interested > in turning this town into a high-diesel-pollution job-destroying > neighborhood-destroying mechanized super-port (and, on the side, airport, > and feeder freeways). > > Over the years and especially lately they've succeeded in getting lots of US > taxpayer funds - with the blessing of both pro-big-city-govt-burocracy > 'liberals' and pro-big-biz 'conservatives' - to help them do this. You see, > our port is now nationally important 'vital infrastructure'; it's half of > the LA-Long Beach port complex that handles nearly half of all US imports - > a key part of Bush et al.'s ongoing tax-subsidized force-fed 'free' trade > campaign to 'outsource' all manner of work from the USA, and to encourage > import of ever more of ever cheaper foreign goods for the ever fewer people > who still have US jobs to pay for them. > > The local pols' latest brilliant idea - albeit wisely rejected by all other > proposed localities in the nation, and endorsed mainly just by Bush's Energy > Secretary - is to actually invite an LNG (liquified natural gas) terminal > into the port, next to densely settled downtown. Never mind 9/11 or the > Algerian disaster or that the city is rightly supposed to be worried about > possible terrorism targeting the port as a chokepoint of US commerce - > anyhow on that account the city already collects 'anti-terrorism security' > US taxpayer subsidies. But the LNG terminal, and the tankers to it, would > offer additional advantages: both to spendthrift politicians (more port-rent > dollars) and to Al Qaeda (prospects of a lovely burn-explode event which > could not only knock out the port but now also in the bargain kill or > imperil thousands of nearby people and billions of dollars of real estate). > > There are lots of immigrant and poor people here - in the USA we were #37 > but now for poverty proportion we're #10 - and #1 in California. City > management loves it - more and more federal assistance-to-local-government > poverty-impact grants that actual poor people rarely see. > > Most people here pay no attention to public affairs. They are new > immigrants or otherwise are too busy making near-poverty wages, or are > transient students, or are retirees from elsewhere who came here to sleep in > the sun and forget anything like the political and social problems of their > former hometowns, or simply grew up here and know no different. > > Local pols and their city hall beaurocrat friends usually insist not merely > on doing their things, but moreover on doing them their way. A citizen's > independent agreement and proferred aid, let alone opposition, is usually > not appreciated. Every few years, they relent at times and appoint some > proper new people to the near-powerless but important-sounding citizen > advisory committees whose recommendations, if they don't match what is > desired on the record as 'public input', are duly filed in the circular > files. > > TV 'news' is 'metro' and long ago gave up pretense of meaningful coverage of > local affairs. Meanwhile the LA Times also does not cover our local > misdeeds and their critics: Long Beach does not really fit in their scheme > either as a mere jolly 'suburb' or as part of the city of LA. > > So most of the few people here who bother voting at all simply follow > instructions, including cute write-in instructions, in the local see-no-evil > (or, at any rate, assign-no-blame) news-rag. > > All this just in case you wondered where ever did I get the idea - rather > new to me two years ago after over five decades of following politics - that > elections and good election methods are not quite enough. > > Joe > > _________________________________________________________________ > Get tax tips, tools and access to IRS forms � all in one place at MSN Money! > http://moneycentral.msn.com/tax/home.asp > > ---- > Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info > ---- Election-methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info
