Читать книгу The State Franchise. Competitive Democracy - - Страница 7

Let’s take a look at the origins and reasons for the emergence of parliaments. In the past, it was impossible for every person to be present at work every day and travel to the capital to vote, so a representative was chosen from each group to represent their interests. Indeed, when there was no internet and the only means of communication was horseback mail, it became essential to send someone in your place. At that time, deputies were the only way to make your voice heard.

But things are different now. Technologically, every person can vote on a particular law from home through a government website, which is subject to top-tier international auditing that leaves no room for doubt about the legitimacy of the results. In this context, all these deputies, senators, congressmen, and so on become simply unnecessary. It is entirely possible to make internet voting honest and transparent, and it’s not difficult to implement – I will explain how to do it later.

So, if deputies are no longer needed – and they truly are not, since we no longer travel in horse-drawn carts – yet some people may still not want to delve into the complexities of every law, then political parties can work directly with voters, persuading them to delegate their voting power. In this case, each person would need to check a box on the government website to indicate the party they support and transfer their vote to it, in case they don’t vote on a specific law themselves. At any moment, a person can switch their support to another party. The party will only gain the right to use that voter’s voice at the final minute of voting.

Voting itself would last for 24 hours, allowing everyone a chance to cast their vote personally if they wish. There would be no need to hold elections for parliaments at any level. Instead, real-time online charts would show party support, and people could express their preferences instantly, rate parties on how they used their vote, read reviews and ratings, and choose who to entrust with their vote. This system should be implemented in parliaments of all levels – there should be no deputies, congressmen, or other intermediaries between a person and the law. This would eliminate lobbyists, corruption, and many other negative phenomena typically associated with parliaments.

A person’s right to participate in lawmaking also comes with responsibility. Therefore, legislative activity must follow these principles: any punitive law must be followed by a relieving law, even if in a different area; laws must not compromise the integrity of the state; draft laws must undergo a risk assessment by independent auditors, and their reports must be made public; the general manager must have the right to veto a bill before it goes to a vote, and overcoming this veto would require more than a simple majority – at least 75% of the vote; the president shall not have veto power. A bill may be initiated by the general manager, the president, or parties holding over 10% of voter mandates at the time the vote begins. A law passed by the people under competitive democracy does not require approval by either the general manager or the president.

Since under federalism a law requires the approval of the Senate, which consists of representatives from the regions, a vote count must be carried out for any given decision – not only for the entire population of the country, but also for each region individually. If a decision is supported by the majority of the country’s population, but the number of regions that voted in favour is less than 50% of all regions, then such a decision is not adopted.

This method of legislative process, proposed by competitive democracy, most accurately reflects the power of the people and implements their will on specific laws. Every person must have the right to vote for or against a law and be confident in the reliability of the results. This level of democracy automatically places the proposed franchise at the top in terms of democratic standards, exposing the backwardness of all states that claim to be democratic. In reality, they refuse to evolve politically and remain stuck in a 16th—19th century version of democracy.