TELEVOTING - THE FINAL FRONTIER
Article by Tony Cook (New Zealand)
Televoting is not new. It’s been around since 1940. It has only been recent, however, that the technology has caught up with the idea. It’s currently available in several parts of the world, but unfortunately, as yet, vast majorities of people are still very much unaware of its enormous positive potential to improve the democratic process. Consequently, it has never got the prominence in the public eye it deserves.
This article is devoted to discussing and explaining its value, its effects on society, democracy, and politics generally.
Not so long ago I met an American of apparent superior intellect who was kind enough to clarify the concept of politics for me. He said, “Many of us keep making the same old mistake in thinking about politics as a spectrum that runs from right to left. It’s not. It’s a scale that runs from top to bottom. The only real questions are: Who’s getting screwed, and, who’s doing the screwing?”
Perhaps, with this in mind, we should firstly take a slightly simplistic look at the democratic process itself. Imagine, if you will, a small group of adults, say half a dozen males, all of similar background, socio-economic status, with no undue influences over one another. In other words, it’s a level political playing field. Generally, such a group will operate naturally on a general majority consensus , the minority accepting it can’t win them all and going with the flow. In other words, democracy seems to be a natural inherent human behaviour trait. Perhaps not so much about whether decisions are right or wrong, but more about what the majority of any group prefers.
Now let’s insert an adult that is different from the others. He’s a person of wealth, fame or authority, such as an employer. A superior influence. Suddenly the political playing field and the democratic process is altered dramatically, in favour of the newcomer. Should the newcomer decide to press his advantage, it will invariably be to serve his own interests first. Consequently, a most undemocratic result will ensue.
Democracy today is absolutely riddled with superior influences, including governments (the elected representatives), large corporations, pressure groups of all shapes and sizes etc. etc. What hope do individual voters (the electorate) have of exercising their democratic rights in the face of so many superior influences, where the level of the political playing field is tipped so heavily against them?
Currently, some of the remedies appear to be: See, or, write to your local politician, join the party and go to meetings, write to government, public speaking and/or media recognition, get up a petition, referenda, legal action, demonstrations (indicative of a civilised society?), coup d’etat, revolution. But note, none of these remedies seek to level the political playing field and individual democratic rights remain largely denied.
There is a level of anger and frustration directly derived from this antiquated system of redress. It is progressively generated according to the degree of difficulty in getting heard or recognised. In many instances, people just give up. But in others, they resort to violence. There is obviously an urgent need for a remedy that seeks to level the political playing field and allows people to be counted meaningfully.
The only real solution to this profoundly undemocratic situation is to introduce a meaningful, positive, and productive counter influence. In other words , a means of levelling up the political playing field that’s beneficial to all parties. A means called televoting. Writing to news groups, communicating through all the various media, and getting polls done etc. is all useful but not meaningful. Televoting is meaningful because it is an officially secured voting system, easily and freely (no cost to user) available to all, the results of which are also known to all, and are permanently on record (to be reviewed at future election campaigns). The results not only guide governing bodies as to what is expected of them, but also inform the electorate as to what it prefers. Everyone has the incentive to be better informed, due to the debate and dialogue that always precedes each televote, and because they can be involved if they want to be in actually exercising their democratic rights. Afterall, individuals are only going to vote on issues they’re interested in. Polls are not comparable because they only utilise a comparatively small sample. Televoting utilises the entire electorate.
The amazing thing about televoting generally is that in all the public speaking I have engaged in, there have only been two consistent arguments against it. The first is the very old argument that too many people would not be competent enough to vote on complex issues. My answer to this “holier than thou” point of view is that we currently all live in a society that recognises every elector’s right to vote for a government, so why should that same right not apply to televoting? Democracy is not about what’s right or wrong, so much as, what the majority prefer. Personally, I tend to think that most people who might have a problem grasping complex issues would either seek further advice or not be inclined to vote at all.
What most so called democratic countries have today is elected representative minority rule. A few hundred politicians literally decide the lifestyle of millions of people, in the almost complete absence of effective and meaningful redress! What is needed, I suggest, is the addition of the televote counter influence, to constantly temper and moderate this otherwise undemocratic minority rule, as well as other undemocratic influences such as large corporations, pressure groups etc.
At this point I would like to acknowledge and recognise that special minority groups would not be left at the mercy of the majority, and that suitable protection would be provided under a Bill of Rights or some other similar type of legislation.
The other
argument against televoting was pretty negative too. Along the lines of,
“Well hardly anybody would ever use it anyway.” This statement more than
anything probably reaffirms a common problem with politics today. Apathy is
everywhere. It so happens though that a good friend of mine, Jack, who is a
staunch Catholic, made this same statement to me too. I already knew, the issue
of abortion as far as Jack is concerned is entirely with the Pope. So I said to
him if the issue of abortion became the subject of a televote would he not
bother to vote?
“That’ll be the day!” Came his immediate reply. “I’d be
there, boots and all, for something like that!”
“Well there you are then,” I replied. “If it’s something you’re interested in or it’s important to you, you’d use it wouldn’t you?” He agreed, and I continued. “Well, it’s just the same for everybody else. I rest my case.”
Another different example is worth mentioning. New Zealand is only a small country of not much more than three and a half million people, of which approximately two and a half million are voters. (Interestingly, full televote facilities were installed throughout NZ in 1989 but are only currently used by some local councils.) About two years ago a TV current affairs programme that follows the news at 7.00pm started conducting “knee jerk” telephone polls just occasionally, (not really televoting but similar in quite a few respects.) All the voters had to do was telephone their votes in at a cost of a dollar per vote, and there was only ten minutes to vote. The first phone vote attracted just over two thousand votes. Not bad considering it was just one show of many, a first time, and you had to pay. It’s also interesting that two years later the same phone vote now pulls in over twenty thousand votes and they’re still paying the dollar per vote. The phone company’s happy anyway. The issues are very straightforward and topical, from “should the national rugby team get a new coach,” to “should the Prime Minister resign and declare a general election?” The point is, there has obviously been a very dramatic increase in the number of voters taking part in a relatively short time. The fact that they are continually willing to pay for the privilege, is, to me, a pretty fair indication that the televoting interest is definitely there, just lying dormant, and only in need of a decent kick-start.
From this actual experience I would wager, a similar trend of gradual acceptance would accompany any introduction of televoting. There are numerous ways of arranging such a service but I suggest the following as being the essential ingredients:
Televote Control Centre, Administration, Registration, Voting And Results
A special Televote Control Centre, totally independent, and free from government or political influences, suitably staffed and equipped, including total security, with funding from tax monies.
A special Televote Council that decides impartially the issues to be voted on and all other necessary discussion arrangements etc.
TV stations, telephone companies, and internet servers to accommodate all televote requirements by law.
All records of televotes are recorded on unalterable mediums and kept in three different cities (geographically well separated). Before historical records are issued or shown to the public all three copies must match.
Registration of voters applies to persons 12 years and over. Full details and ID are necessary including up to 5 nominated personal phone numbers before PIN numbers are issued.
Voting options be “Yes”, “No”, (or “Option A”, “Option B” etc.), and “Uncommitted”.
One vote per voter per issue, not alterable once cast.
Results reported be “Yes”, “No”, (or “Option A”, “Option B” etc.), “Uncommitted”, “Didn’t vote”.
Televote services are free to all.
Televote results must be communicated publicly per all appropriate media.
Prior To Any Televote
Every issue has an issue number allocated.
Each issue to be clearly defined in all appropriate media.
Sufficient time allowed before any televote for discussion and debate.
Sufficient time allowed (a week?) to televote.
Some issues may benefit from progressive televoting as important and significant changes occur.
The Televote Council to make readily available facilities for voters to suggest issues for possible televote.
The timing of televotes is of course extremely flexible and largely dependent on the number and complexity of the issues.
The More Important Advantages of Televoting
No democracy functions to its fullest potential unless there is significant participation by the people.
Elected authorities don’t necessarily know best.
The majority of people usually know best, and nobody always knows best.
Any political system will eventually fail, or lend itself to corruption or worse, where total political authority is vested in a comparatively small number of people without suitable and meaningful system of redress.
Politicians must be accountable at all times. Not just at each election.
Televoting is not just a telephone/computer game. It is a whole dimension of the democratic process, which is currently missing. It is a vital input and balancing influence concerning the real priorities of society, as society sees it, and not what is necessarily perceived by a comparatively small number of politicians, and/or dedicated pressure groups.
Televoting minimizes the frustration of not being able to be heard by those that need to hear, of not being able to be counted, or, of not being part of the decision making process. Everybody matters!
Televoting makes redundant, costly referenda, petitions, polling booths, unseemly and uncivilised demonstrations and civil commotion. Televoting enhances less violence in society by better information and less frustration.
Televoting dilutes oppression, high-handedness and irresponsibility by elected authority because (unlike polls) results are always 100% accurate and publicly known to all.
Televoting is a monitoring system, not a system of government. Government may well decide to make certain televotes binding (elections for example), but that will be their prerogative. Government has an ongoing duty to the public, to inform and convince them of the wisdom of its various decisions.
Televoting is the way of the future. It is wrong to complain about government, politicians, or political systems, if you would not lift a finger to make any worthwhile changes.
Today, the voter has no real voice, except at election time. As a taxpayer and financial contributor, every voter should be entitled to an ongoing meaningful voice, between elections. It’s his money that’s being spent!
Televoting is free, fast, convenient, accurate, secure, effective, helpful to future planning etc. You don’t have to be an accomplished speaker or writer to make your preferences known. All you need do is pick up your phone, or sit at your computer keyboard, and push the right buttons, in the comfort and privacy of your home, or wherever.
Televoting is available to minors, 12 years and over, thus encouraging youth to take an even more positive part in the community and young people’s affairs, becoming more socially aware, responsible and better informed.
Televoting is not necessarily restricted to politics. It can be made available to local authorities, commercial interests etc. It is infinitely superior to polls because it is less costly, 100% accurate, and can provide any statistical breakdown required. Minority groups can therefore be more readily identified and better served.
What government would deliberately defy the nation without exceedingly good reason, and a subsequent further duty to convince the nation thereby.
Televoting would completely revitalise democracy. It is a natural evolution of democracy - the final frontier !
Other articles available are: “Penal Confinement - The Solitary Solution”
“Welfare - Non-Repayable And Repayable”
“Debit Tax – Key to Fiscal Prosperity”