- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Tam Hunt: In an Effortocracy It’s Have Computer, Will Vote
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”
— Winston Churchill, 1947
Democracy does indeed have its drawbacks and we can identify two broad themes: Failures as a result of the influence of powerful and moneyed interests on elected officials and failures as a result of the fear that choices by elected officials will not be easily explained to an electorate that has little time or attention for nuance. The cure for democracy’s failings, however, is not less democracy, but more direct democracy, empowering individuals through increased knowledge and new technology.
Public financing of all political competitions would go a long way toward fixing the first problem. Publicly financed candidates receive money from a common fund after passing muster as legitimate candidates. For example, candidates in some jurisdictions that have publicly financed elections must collect a required number of signatures or a required number of very small donations. Public financing relieves candidates of the pressure to collect money from the usual sources, such as wealthy individuals, corporations or unions, freeing them from implicit or explicit “strings” that come with such contributions.
Public financing is making slow progress in the United States, with states like Arizona and Maine ahead of the curve. The experience of these states has been very positive and the public financing movement is catching on elsewhere.
Surprisingly, California is far behind the curve, only recently passing into law a very limited public finance pilot program that will kick in by 2014, if it is approved by voters in a ballot initiative in 2010. We can do far better.
President Obama’s presidential campaign, and Howard Dean’s before him, demonstrated that high-profile national races could be financed in large part through small donations from thousands, or even millions, of individuals. This is a very encouraging development, demonstrating the ability of the Internet and other media to broaden our democracy and loosen the stranglehold of special interests. But even Obama’s campaign relied on large donations for about half of its total, and the large majority of political races just don’t receive enough attention from the public to make small individual donations a potent enough force to replace the power of special-interest money.
With many European and South American nations pioneering public financing, the trend seems clear, however: we are headed to a future in which more and more political races are unhitched from moneyed special interests. So it seems that in the coming decade or two, the problem of special interest money in the U.S. electoral process may eventually be solved, or at least diminished considerably.
The second problem — the lack of time or interest among the electorate to pay attention to nuance — will not be solved through public finance. It may never be solved because it may always be part of our culture that the majority lacks the interest in political or policy issues to devote enough time to understand the debates and elected officials’ votes on controversial issues.
There is one possibility, however, which I call the “effortocracy,” that would help in resolving this inherent problem. In the effortocracy, the 21st-century information network we call the Internet is combined with increased voting privileges to allow ordinary voters to become “super voters.” Essentially, those who demonstrate knowledge of our political system through standardized tests would earn enhanced voting privileges. And they could vote online, as though they were elected officials, on a wide array of policy issues in local, state and even national government.
Online voting is becoming more widespread, despite the snafus that have occurred with electronic (not online) voting. Various companies have developed online voting software platforms that directly address the security concerns inherent to any voting process that doesn’t involve traditional paper ballots. Online voting is allowed in many countries, including Australia, England, Estonia, Latvia and Switzerland. Latvia will allow online voting for all elections starting next month. In the United States, expatriates and military personnel have been allowed to vote online in various elections over the last few years. No major security problems have been reported.
So it seems that online voting is on the way. The only question is: how fast?
The second key ingredient in the effortocracy is a testing system that confers increased voting privileges on those who seek them. Voting rights for any person who is eligible under normal requirements are not infringed in any way. Rather, those who seek them — the “effort” part of the effortocracy — may in this proposed system earn additional voting privileges. These privileges would allow the “super voters,” those who have passed the required tests and thus demonstrated their knowledge and commitment, to vote on issues that would normally be voted on only by elected officials, or decided by government bureaucrats.
For example, a multifamily housing project that would normally be voted on by a city planning commission could be voted on by super voters. The super voters’ combined votes could represent an additional “seat” on the commission. Or it could, over time, even eliminate the need for permanent planning commission seats, depending on the level of interest among super voters.
Similarly, city councils or county boards, or even state and national legislatures, could have “seats” comprised of aggregated super voters. Or, again, they could eventually give way to a true direct democracy comprised of thousands or millions of super voters.
The effortocracy would allow those with the interest and time to become truly involved in policy and politics, with no privileged background or wealth required. All that would be required is a computer with a good Internet connection. The effortocracy would be completely transparent and would be far more immune from corruption or distortion than today’s political system.
The effortocracy represents a forward-thinking system that would go a long way toward fixing some inherent problems in all democracies today. It would not be perfect, but perhaps one day some wit will say that “effortocracy is the worst form of government, except for all the rest that have been tried.”
— Tam Hunt is a Santa Barbara attorney.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 02.08.09 @ 04:29 AM
Tam, at a time when public education is being destroyed and higher education is being priced so that only the wealthy can afford it you suggest that voting be essentially restricted to the very learned? This sounds like a return to the Dark Ages, serfs ruled by Kings and Princes. What we really need is a Federal Government that spends more on education than on a useless military. Bob
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.08.09 @ 09:59 AM
Effortocracy is so cool. This new Constitutional amendment would get us back to the original concept for government as by the rich educated gentry, which is how I intended it to be.
I will be glad to help write these “standardized tests” to confer the right to vote.
Gee I wonder why the author line here conspicuously omits the Tam job at Community Environmental Council?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.08.09 @ 09:18 PM
Hmmmm…Tam - Effortocracy: the sort of interesting idear best discussed over a beer and then shelved under “ain’t ever gonna happen.” After listening to your proposition and taking a second sip, I might have asked, “And how do you propose this new system of voting get established?” Being well-versed in civics, you might have answered, “Constitutional amendment, I would guess…” After another sip or two I would have then asked, “And do you expect a majority of people in 3/4 of the states to vote for their probable (albeit relative) disenfranchise-ment?”
Then I might has asked, probably after ordering a second round, “And how long do you suppose it would be until the super-well-informed began demanding a greater voting weight compared to those who barely passed the admissions test to the Brahmin super-voter caste?”
Somewhere in the middle of the third round, I might propose that rather than applying such a test to voters, it might be more efficient and efficacious to require potential candidates to take it. You no pass, you no run… Then, just for added insurance to the voting public who is so often snookered, judging by any number of elections, candidates who pass the Civics 101 test would then have to take and pass an emotional/ethical equivalent to a rabies test. Only then could someone file for office - with publicly funded campaigns, of course.
‘Course, that won’t happen—makes too much sense.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.09.09 @ 01:48 PM
A fine idea coming from one who loves to study then perhaps take a Michael Phelps size hit off the bong. What keeps the “super voters” from being led into the same temptations as all politicians who have come before? Perhaps first they should take an ethics test standardized by whom? Then, of course, there would have to be the lie detector test administrated at the same time as their drug test. In fact, there would have to be one heck of a lot of rules to make sure the super voters are not taking over the nation.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.09.09 @ 02:36 PM
LOL Mark
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.13.09 @ 08:19 AM
Folks, you apparently missed this line in my piece: “Voting rights for any person who is eligible under normal requirements are not infringed in any way.”
The effortocracy would not effect normal voting privileges in any way.
Rather than the system we have today, of the “money primary” and then the actual primary where we all get to vote, the effortocracy would lead to a system in which any voter who wishes to expend the effort to become a super voter could exercise more influence over politics and policy. Rather than today’s system in which money still calls the shots in so many ways, the effortocracy would allow thousands or even millions of super voters to cal the shots. These super voters would not be immune from money pressures, but it sure would be harder to pay off or implicitly bribe thousands of super voters than just a few key politicians.
The reason I don’t use my day job’s tagline for this piece is b/c this does not relate to my day job. This stems from my avocation for political philosophy and better governance.
Think these ideas through, in light of today’s political reality, which is still in many ways a plutocracy, and you will see that the effortocracy is immeasurably better than a plutocracy/pseudo-democracy.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 02.18.09 @ 12:56 PM
The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land.
The idea of Democracy is:
(1) Demos – many people in Greek
(2) Cracia – by creed or belief in Greek, later in Latin meant grace as to exempli gracia; that which is to set the example.
The semantics meant Democracy is the government of the people shown by the people. Yes, WE are a Democracy.
The United States is a Federal Republic; comprising of states many of which are forms of Republics where a Federation was compacted into one Nation.
Republic is our type of Government where we volunteer our decisions when we vote representatives to decide for all of us.
I want to call my Nation a Venerated Federal Republic, each Republic called State elects officials to the Government.
Federated means the Joint Governments where there is no infringement from a State to another State – maybe stated also.
I question venerated as to everyone’s effort; where did respect go?
NOW: To suggest an “Effortocracy” as to voting methods by way of computer lacking key Funds as well as Fundamentals, contemplate the following:
1. Capital – we do not have.
2. Computers – many are illiterate as to the parts of a computer alone.
3. Effort – none given by most American Students – our future citizens.
4. Math – Algebra is already a problem to decide standards let alone complex paradigms.
What happened to sacrifice? To make an effort is to know what one is working for to achieve the effort; suggests a sacrifice for the future. Our own Generation is carefree to save instead claim entitlements.
NO THANK YOU: Open a book and start reading and thinking so no proposals as to more wastes will ever be proposed; just understand that which is to be done.
Besides, the average American throws their computer every two to three years because fashion drives our sense of capital instead of practicality.
I also do not want to vote for how the trash is disposed – already hard to read and wasting money. I suggest concentrating efforts on teaching at-risk youth than proposing effortless votes.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Tam Hunt: On Time and Free Will
Was Einstein wrong about the nature of time and determinism?
Tam Hunt: The Decline and Fall of the Oil Age
High oil prices and new technologies a driving force behind massive transformation
Tam Hunt: Is It Time for California to Phase Out Nuclear Power?
There may be no better time than the present to begin a more aggressive transition to alternative power sources
Tam Hunt: Wiki-Government As an Antidote to Corruption
Crowdsourcing government could take many different forms and is spreading as an idea
Tam Hunt: A Postmortem of America’s War in Iraq
As a country, we owe it to ourselves and to the world to never again abide an illegal U.S. war and military atrocities by our troops
Weather: Fair 47.0º
Search Noozhawk »
