E-voting coming to the fore!

The area of Venuto in Italy (Venice and surroundings) has just proven the effectiveness, and ease of voting via what is called “e-voting”, in a referendum upon independence of that region from the rest of Italy. Some 2.3 million people out of an eligible number of 3.7 million   voted, during a period of  5 days. And   89 % voted in favour of independence, some 2.1 million  of them 

         It seems that that area provides an extra large percentage of the taxes used throughout the rest of the country, without receiving similar return benefits; and citizens wanted to return to the days when the Venitian area was a major independent community, within the world.

         But, the interesting aspect for our purposes was the relative ease of involving the citizenry in an important issue. Those who did not use the  internet, (one could even vote via smart-phones), could vote in the normal paper vote fashion. Means have now been developed to ensure propriety and avoidance of anything fraud-like, through the  provision of  safe ID’s. It seems that some 18 countries now use such internet processes to permit such voting.

         Such a boon this should be to permit voters to communicate their opinions upon any number of important issues. Maybe the world will awaken its dormant, democratic lapses, via this simple, and now proven, effective procedure.

         It is not clear yet to what extent the main government of Italy will  acknowledge this disuniting decision. But it must pay attention to it, to its peril, if it ignores such clear result. Only eleven percent   voted against independence, while but .29  percent of the votes were deemed improper. An independent commission supervised the vote to ensure propriety.

         This story was fulsomely reported by many news agencies on Mar. 26. It was suggested that several other European areas, including a couple of others from Italy, may pursue similar votes soon.

        

         

Lots of Referendums!

Crimean Referendum mid March? Venetian area Referendum during a last week of March? Scotland’s upcoming Referendum in Sept.? Quebec Referendum in a few years? Such a lot of citizen participation! Is Direct Democracy finally coming  to the fore?

         Well, in some respects, one could  say so. Despite criticisms about methodology (many would say that the Russians interfered within the Crimean area unduly, (or, indeed, within the overall, though collapsing, Ukraine)). Others would say that the Venetian vote does not bind the country; that Scotland has been trying for such for hundreds of years, without any culmination; and that Quebec’s vote has already occurred twice and should not  be expected to succeed again, even if some strong-willed leaders want it to.

         But, regardless, of appropriateness, all such votes do directly involve the people. And, in that respect they are an improvement over the form of democracy where major decisions are only to be made by the leaders (even where these leaders were elected), or, more aptly, by political parties.     

         And so one should not entirely discount any of  those proceedings.

         But, “Direct Democracy” involves much more than votes introduced by the supposed leaders. It should emanate from the citizens themselves to be truly direct. Where done properly,  such referendums start with a citizen initiative, the wording of which has been approved by an ombudsman (or similar). Such question must then gather up, within a set period of time, a prescribed, large number of citizen signatures,  to show that the  question is seriously held. Then, edited views from both sides are forwarded, to the voters, along with the ballots ,  with the questions to be held at a convenient, inexpensive date. 

         After all of that, if the citizens do approve the vote, the legislatures must follow the decision. That is the turn of events which should be taken occasionally, to ensure that the vote is fair and properly considered.  That is what is meant by true Direct Democracy. And, it is done in many, very successful, modern, political jurisdictions.

         What is happening in the aforementioned, dividing-country referendums does clearly , and properly, involve citizens.

         But, let us not confuse it with the proper process, previously described. That process was done in the Jura area in Switzerland, several years ago,  to separate a portion of a canton from another one.  Similar votes occurred in Czeckoslavakia to successfully divide it into two “nations”. Such might be done in Catalonia, in Spain, soon. 

         Regardless, to involve the people more, especially in this technological age, should be more encouraged; that is, if we are truly serious about the whole ideal of “democracy” - the voice of the people. 

         Referendums, yes; better forms of creation, likewise. Let us hope that we see more of them, soon, before our so vaunted, representative democracy, does not simply fall apart from citizen frustration, and ineffectiveness. 

         Look forward to my up-dating shortly, of a recent Swiss referendum, initiated by a concerned investor, which has caused large corporations in that country to alter its manner of remunerating its directors; and about the recent, international  Economist magazine’s investigation of diminishing democracy, throughout much of the modern world.

          

         

Swiss vote to limit immigration quotas.

     The Swiss people once again have voted contrary to the wishes of their government. On Sunday Feb. 9,  by a country-wide referendum, some 50.3% of the voters –  just 30,000 more votes than the contrary,  backed a proposal by one of the minor political parties to have quotas for immigrants. This  will require the government to renegotiate treaties with the European Union countries, a very awkward  situation. For until then citizens from most EU members states could freely move to  and work in Switzerland, just as the Swiss could do so within most EU states.

         Many business groups have complained about the result, suggesting that jobs could be compromised, but the majority of the Swiss were not swayed. They seemingly fear that increasing number of immigrants are not good for their federation; some point to an especially large number of new Muslim immigrants as being part of the problem. Switzerland’s healthy economy and high salaries had, it seems,  caused about ¼ of all the 8 million people now living there to come in, in recent years, from other countries.  Indeed, according to the National Post article of Feb. 11, some 80,000 people had moved to little Switzerland just last year.

         Regardless, once again the Swiss people have made their opinions  felt. Whether or not the end result will cause them undue problems, only time will tell. But the peoples’ voices are what count in Switzerland. No doubt many of the 26 EU states which have encouraged increased movement of peoples, will be considerably dismayed. Brussells has already voiced annoyance. They will   try to find ways to penalize the Swiss – which must negotiate all treaties on a bilateral basis. This is because it previously had chosen (by a previous citizen vote) not to officially be a part of the actual Union.

        

        

         

Senate Reform - by referendum - in Canada!

        Referendums; – here is an example, but on a smaller scale, of a process just like that often followed in many US states,  other international areas, and, especially,  Switzerland. Former Reform Party leader Preston Manning, and former Alberta cabinet minister, Ted Morton are asking Canadians to vote on the future of the Senate. This is via responding to the website – www.reformorabolish.ca The alternatives are shown therein – to abolish the Senate now, or by 2025, keep the status quo, or major or minor reforms.

         The two will be presenting the results at a party convention in late February. According to the National Post, in which this story appeared, the Conservative Party has already asked the Supreme Court what it would take to reform or abolish this important upper chamber of our democratic system.

         Surely this method – asking the people what they think, is a vital manner to answer this important question, in a supposedly democratic country – such as our own.  I must say that I would prefer it to be more broadly communicated (within the whole country) - but, it clearly is the right direction. Why not check it out? 

New Zealand's Recent Referendum

       New Zealand has a slightly strange manner of effecting citizens' views on issues, via referendums. It does have a manner of selecting issues upon which they should have the right to have a vote; and a recent one relates to an interesting matter re: asset sales amidst protests over drilling for oil. More than 10% of the voters ( as required) presented a petition calling for the vote. It seems that most of the efforts behind the vote were encouraged by political parties in a minority, within the parliament.
     This has been within their laws since 1993. Three million voters received the referendum  document in mid  November.   But, apparently, according to the Economist magazine of Dec. 6, the government does not actually have to listen to the voters wishes if it does not want to. And so, apparently, if the turnout happens to be low or for whatever other reason the government my come up with, it is not legally bound by the result - and may, indeed take no heed of it.
       The majority of voters (67%) did say they did not want to see the partial sale of some state-owned assets. But some were already sold, and Mr. Key, the Prime Minister did not, it seems, as yet, see a reason, due to a voter turnout of only 40%, to follow more seriously, the results.
       Pretty odd - to go to such trouble, and indeed some expense, and then for the government to be able to ignore what their citizens wish. Surely such government does not have much right to continue, one would conclude - but then, that is New Zealand.

      

Columnists concerned about democracy - but not via citizen voting?

        Does is not seem odd? The many, recent editorials and comments by prominent columnists in Canada about – ideas to change the manner of selecting and retaining  leadership there. Right now a party selects its leader at a convention of a few thousand members. If that party wins the majority of seats in the subsequent election, that leader becomes prime minister. After being so chosen, such leader has very great control over the wishes of the other representatives. The leaders’ “whip” can whip  any of them, into the leaders’ bidding on votes within the legislature. He does this by ensuring that monies do, or do not, get to that ridings projects; or by kicking  out such rep from  various committees, or ministries.   The leader can even veto subsequent nominations within various ridings, if he does not approve of the local ridings’ wishes.  Ideas to alter these situations, aim  to  improve our democracy, which recent polls suggest is in very low esteem among the citizens.

         But no discussions that I have noticed, about how really to improve it – by actually permitting the citizen to vote on issues  via referendums. One group is even strongly organizing itself, it seems,  to try to have  representatives within various  ridings, who   believe strongly about its favourite issue – to provide a law limiting abortions. Such a difficult manner to try to establish your point of view. Canada is, indeed,  one of the very few countries that has no law at all on abortions. Would not it be better, however, to  just permit a public vote on that subject. That vote would occur at the same time as the periodic elections. That way, one would truly know the majority view. Is not that what democracy is supposed to be all about?

         It would hardly matter just what powers a leader may have,   if the citizens could vote on the issues they truly find not being properly pursued by their elected reps. That method is followed by many states and countries – but not in any manner at all in Canada. And who is truly even discussing that method of improvement? Any of our columnists? Not recently, anyway, that I have noticed. It is odd, you must admit.  

Many new referendums in the States, some attracting a lot of money?

     Many ballot measures  occurred in USA recently.  But, does spending money on them  buy success?   The Economist magazine in its Nov. 15 edition recounts the results in over a dozen recent campaigns in the States. In Colorado, a campaign to replace that state's flat income tax, with a"tiered" system, to try to raise  a lot of money for education purposes, apparently attracted over $10 million in support, some 300 times that spent by the other side, - but won over only a third of the voters.
     At a  suburb of Seattle, voters approved a $15.00 per hour minimum wage, and a similar vote succeeded in New Jersey. Bans on fracking were passed in 3 cities in Colorado and one in Ohio; but others turned down such proposals. Cincinnati turned down an initiative to replace city workers' defined-benefit pensions. In Colorado, having voted in favour of legalizing marijuana two years ago, the voters voted to tax sales of it. Similar marijuana favoured laws were passed in Maine and three cities in Michigan; and though  7 casinos were approved in New York State, two such proposals flopped in Massachusetts; while those in favour of weak beer cheered a result in Utah, where voters approved the sale of drinks there containing no more than 3.2% of alcohol.
     Such a lot of citizen-voting on issues in the U.S. states. And in our provinces? Do we citizens  have any real  say in anything?