Down with Elections! a Plan for Democracy without Elections

By Campbell Wallace

For two hundred years, we have assumed that free elections bring democracy and good government. The media, politicians and some political scientists tell us so, but is this true? The governments we elect fail to effectively tackle urgent problems such as climate change and environmental degradation, even though most people want immediate action. Politicians blatantly disregard facts, corruption is widespread, and the influence of powerful lobbies and wealthy interests on politics is notorious. Although we call our system “representative democracy” in fact it is neither. Yet in spite of their obvious failings we continue, with a sort of collective blindness, to put our faith in elections – and to complain afterwards at the results.

After listing in detail the failings of elections, this book presents a feasible alternative: sortition, (choice by lot), which, when used with suitable institutions, provides a much fairer representation than we see at present, giving a parliament which automatically takes into account the wishes of all citizens. In the model proposed any citizen may make proposals for laws, and the use of policy committees to do background research permits fair, informed and intelligent decisions even on complicated technical questions. The author shows how such a parliament can interact with the administration and the judiciary, gives examples of the legislature in action and shows the advantages of this system in eliminating corruption, incoherent policies, and the dominance of money, ideology, and crude, “tribal” loyalties among voters.

We need reform, and this is the reform that will make other reforms possible.

“Excellent. Well thought through, and well-argued.”
—Terrill Bouricius, former Vermont Senator

“Innovative, thoughtful, and well-written. I highly recommend it”
—David Schecter, Political researcher

“Punchy, concise, practical and clear. Wonderfully readable and non-academic”
—Iain Walker, New Democracy Foundation

• Language: English
• Publisher: Campbell Wallace
• Release date: Feb 6, 2020
• ISBN: 9791095159094

Campbell Wallace

(Who gives a damn about the author? It's the ideas that matter!) But if you are curious, in the last forty or so years Campbell Wallace has visited or lived in about forty countries, found good people in all of them, and good government in none. After a life spent in a great variety of occupations, mostly to do with boats, and not at all with politics or government, he has spent the last six years in researching, writing, and revising this book. Apart from that, he has whiskers, likes red wine, and sees no reason to apologise for either.

Book preview

Introduction

DEMOCRACY WITHOUT ELECTIONS?

How could anyone except a would-be dictator be so stupid, so irresponsible, or so perverse as to wish to see the end of elections? In the developed and supposedly democratic world, we are accustomed to think that freedom and democracy, if not quite synonymous, go hand in hand; that one is not possible without the other. We assume, usually without giving the matter much thought, that elections are necessary for democracy and that they guarantee freedom.

Even though we cannot precisely define what we mean by the word democracy, we assume that elections are necessary for democracy, and that they are our guarantee of freedom. The Economist Intelligence Unit, for instance, says in the introduction to its Democracy Index for 2016:

There is no consensus on how to measure democracy. Definitions of democracy are contested, and there is a lively debate on the subject […] Even if a consensus on precise definitions has proved elusive, most observers would agree that, at a minimum, the fundamental features of a democracy include government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed; the existence of free and fair elections; the protection of minority rights; and respect for basic human rights.

And again:

The condition of holding free and fair competitive elections, and satisfying related aspects of political freedom, is clearly the sine qua non of all definitions. [1]

It is easy enough to see why this assumption is so common. First, citizens of those countries which at present do not have elections, or where elections are a mere sham and the result is a foregone conclusion, are clearly not free. They are subject to dictators, or military juntas; those who are not in power have no rights and are at the mercy of the dictator, his police and his cronies. Clearly this is a bad situation, and no-one would deny that we are better off with elections, whatever their faults may be.

Second, from early in the nineteenth century – not long after ever since the monarchy was replaced in America and France by a government of elected representatives – we have been told by the Press, by philosophers and political theorists, and by the representatives themselves, that an elected government gives us democracy and freedom, that we the people are in control. Children are taught in their earliest years of school that democracy means choosing our leaders in elections and vice versa. Though it is done in all sincerity and with the best of intentions, such is the tenacity of our early beliefs that most of us never question this in later life, and so, in effect, we are indoctrinated. Yet the simple equation elections equal democracy is certainly not incontrovertible, and should be open to rigorous, critical examination.

Third, since the nineteenth century we have seen the expansion of the electorate from a franchise limited to propertied white males to an electorate of all citizens who have reached majority. It is obvious that this is a great step towards fairness. Consequently we tend to believe that all the most important steps have now been taken, and that, even if minor reforms could be made, to all intents and purposes we have achieved freedom and equality.

Fourth, we see people in less fortunate countries desperately struggling, often at the risk of prison, torture, or death, to get an elected government like those in Europe or North America, or to migrate to a country with such a government. If these people are willing to risk so much in order to have a political system like ours, then surely our system must be worth defending at all costs.

Yet despite these comforting assumptions, it is apparent that all is not well in our democratic world. Politicians seem to serve only the interests of large corporations and the wealthy, not those of the community as a whole, decisions are taken which fly in the face of common sense and well-established facts, and the man or woman in the street is increasingly dissatisfied and cynical. [2] The signs are obvious: political leaders are regarded with contempt, they are seen to be corrupt, incompetent, or to have betrayed the interests of the electors. Voter turnout is low, often not much over 50%, sometimes even less. In the past it has been usual to assume that those who fail to vote are simply apathetic and too lazy to do so; it is accepted now that often they don’t vote because they know that their vote will have no effect, or believe that whichever way they vote, the politicians’ promises will be broken. Other voters turn to the extreme left or right, quite often not because they want to see an extremist party in power, but as a protest vote to show their disgust with the major parties. And whatever one thinks of Donald Trump and of Hillary Clinton, it is hardly a sign of healthy democracy that in 2016 neither candidate had the approval of a majority of Americans. If elections select the best candidate for office, are we really to believe that in a population of 325 million, there is no-one better fitted to be President than a man disapproved of by 61% of the electorate? [3]

We see too that there is a large gap between rhetoric and practice. Western governments, so ready to trumpet their commitment to freedom, nevertheless help to maintain or install dictatorships and military governments in other countries, and oppose any attempt by the citizens of those countries to free themselves. Moreover, blatant abuses of human rights are committed by elected governments, usually with the pretext that this is necessary to defend democracy against subversion or fanatics.

There is a feeling, then, that things don’t work out as they should. We tend to blame other people; for most of us the villains are the politicians, and for many, the media and big business. Politicians blame their political opponents, or sometimes the apathy or the ignorance or unreal expectations of the ordinary citizen. And everyone likes to blame the bureaucrats. Almost no-one, until recently, has considered the notion that it is perhaps not only the people involved who are to blame, but also – indeed especially – the political system itself. It seems to be accepted without question that elections mean democracy, and democracy means freedom.

Of course, unprincipled and venal politicians are common, and so are uninformed and apathetic citizens. However, I shall argue that it is neither the voter (or the non-voter) nor the politicians that are the real problem. As I see it, the root cause is the system itself, the system of free elections that we hold so dear, and which nevertheless is deeply flawed. I also argue that, contrary to accepted wisdom, it is possible to have a more equitable and more efficient system of government.

The first and second chapters of this book deal with the faults (as I see them) of what we call representative democracy that is, government chosen by elections, and compare our current systems with accepted standards. In chapter 3 I look briefly at direct democracy, where issues are decided by popular vote, before moving on to the real subject of the book, sortition. Chapter 4 outlines the nature and advantages of sortition, and chapter 5 sets out a plan or template for a legislature chosen by sortition, at the national level. Chapter 6 shows examples of the functioning of this legislature, while chapter 7 contains a suggestion for the application of sortition at local government level. Chapter 8 compares the proposed sortition-based legislature with the criteria for democracy introduced in chapter 2. The theoretical and practical background behind the choices made in this model is set out in chapters 9 and 10. Chapter 11 consists of replies to objections which have been raised by readers.

1 – The Failure of Elections: Twenty-Seven Defects

Casting ballot

There are many reasons why elections don’t work very well, including the following:

1.1 Elections are all too vulnerable to fraud. Votes are lost or falsely declared invalid, ballot boxes are stolen or stuffed with fake votes, some voters vote many times, electronic voting machines have buggy software, recounts are impossible because there is no permanent record, or it could not be done in the time available or are too expensive, and so on. [4] To be sure, one might protest that these are not so much faults as abuses of the system by the unscrupulous. But without elections these abuses could not occur, so this is no argument at all: it amounts to admitting that elections are vulnerable.

1.2 In principle, anyone can stand as a candidate, and the voter can choose any candidate whatsoever. But modern election campaigns require huge sums of money, so in practice only those who have the backing of wealthy organisations and individuals can realistically be candidates. [5] Generally speaking then, the ordinary citizen can neither be a candidate – except at the price of joining a party, working long and hard to rise in the hierarchy, and subordinating his or her ideals to the party line – nor vote for the candidate he or she would prefer, since the only candidates available – that is to say who have a hope of getting elected – are those who please these powerful groups. Our choice is limited to a small number of candidates chosen by others.

1.3 Since survival (that is to say re-election) in politics depends on this finance, elected politicians must – at least to some extent – put the interests of their financial supporters before those of the public or risk losing their backing at the next election, which may mean certain loss of the election. [6] The interests of these supporters, of course, have nothing to do with your interests or mine, or those of the rest of the electors. Laws limiting campaign finance are not always effective. Candidates and their donors either find ways to circumvent them legally, or break the law in ways that are not easily detected. Amendments are often made, with the assent of opposition parties, which increase the limits or otherwise neutralise the law.

1.4 The electoral system makes parties necessary. Even if election campaign expenditure were rigorously limited to zero, it would still be necessary for candidates to form groups. An unknown, independent candidate has no chance of election, because the electorate has no idea of what he or she stands for, and fears the unknown: Better the devil you know than the devil you don’t. Even a celebrity, a sporting hero or actor, for instance, will have to work very hard to make his policies known and his candidature credible. An unknown candidate belonging to a large party, on the other hand, has a better chance of election, because most of that party’s supporters will vote for the party regardless of who the candidate is. He will also have the support of the party machine and its leaders.

Now electoral politics is adversarial. Parties struggle to be elected, and to prevent other parties taking power. Party strategists work hard, by means of gimmicks – funny hats in party colours, slogans, ribbons, banners, streamers, etc – to promote a sense of party loyalty in the voters, a sense of belonging to a group. The strategists deliberately polarise the voters, always stressing the division between us and them. Politicians, by their denigration of opponents, (and also by their own questionable behaviour) further this polarisation.

No tactic is too base, too ignoble. Opposing candidates’ private lives are searched for anything that will discredit them. Calumny is just part of the game. It doesn’t matter if a discreditable report is true or false, mud sticks and the campaign managers know it, and the only thing that counts is the public’s reaction on election day. Who cares if there’s a bit of a scandal or the threat of a libel suit just after the election, as long as our guy gets elected?

Media reports of elections are couched in competitive metaphors, like those of a sporting match, or even in warlike terms, (fight to the death etc) and stress the battle between parties. It is not surprising that the voters often support their party (and abhor the opposition) in a tribal fashion, fervently and uncritically, like some supporters of football clubs. Whether or not this helps the candidate, it often leads to serious violence, and never to thoughtful consideration of issues. And surely politics ought to be about issues, not about personalities or party loyalty.

1.5 Some countries subsidise political campaigns at taxpayers’ expense, ostensibly in order to reduce the effect of donations by wealthy groups. Unfortunately this leads to an unfair advantage for some parties, generally the largest, since the money is usually given in proportion to the votes that each party receives, or else is limited to parties that gain more than a certain percentage of the vote. Since the laws governing these subventions are implemented by the politicians of the major parties, and they are the ones who benefit, this is a form of legalised corruption. It also discourages small parties with new – or at least different – policies. The American Political Action Committees, by donating only to the two major parties, have a similar effect. Indeed it is sometimes even argued – absurdly – that the PACs are necessary in order to exclude minor parties, in the name of preserving stability. In reality, it is the privileged position of the major parties which is preserved.

1.6 The motivation of candidates is open to question. By the very fact of standing for office elected politicians show that they seek power. There is a saying that no man who seeks power is fit to exercise it. [7] Does your candidate want to change the laws to feather his own nest? Or is he high-minded and honest, and merely gets a buzz from making up rules for you and others to obey? Or is he a complete power-freak in the early stages of megalomania? Whatever the case, nobody comes to hold power in a modern state without wanting that power. Elections favour the ambitious, not necessarily the able or the honest, and there must always be the danger that the ambitious, elected few will use the power they have gained to seek more and more power.

It happens often that the politicians’ only aim, once elected, is to hang on to power and position by any means available. We can’t blame them too much: this is all too human and perfectly understandable if they have been in politics – and out of the real world – for a long time, so that politics is their only way of making a living and supporting a family.

1.7 Party politics always involves compromise. By joining a party, or voting for its candidate, we are obliged to compromise. We don’t all think alike, so the aims of any candidate or party will typically be different from ours. If we have clear personal political aims, in the hope of furthering the principal ones we have to vote for someone who will not attempt to bring about our other goals, which we thus effectively sacrifice, presumably because we regard them as less important.

Once elected, the politician will achieve nothing without cooperating with other elected members, and that entails more compromise. Your candidate may promise to act as you would wish on a particular issue, and may even completely agree with you on that issue, and yet make a contrary vote, following the party line. The representative will justify this by saying that in order to get anything useful done, she or he and the party must stay in power, and if a compromise is necessary to stay in power, then so be it, that compromise must be made. Which is all quite true in pragmatic terms, but in the process, one of your key goals may be sacrificed in order to bring about something that is anathema to you. Not only has your politician failed to deliver, he or she has in effect betrayed you. The word betrayed is not too strong, even though the politician may have made an honest attempt to act for the best, and so has not acted unethically. You voted for a package based on the candidate’s or the party’s platform. What you got is nothing like what you anticipated. You feel cheated, and rightly so; if you had known, you might have voted for the other party.

Compromises can happen at more than one level: within a faction, within a party, within a coalition, or to get the support of a minor party determined to sell that support at the highest possible price. At each stage your preferences are likely to be disregarded.

Where, as in the US, politicians are not held to vote strictly according to the party’s dictates, the need to compromise in order to achieve anything can lead to a bizarre form of horse trading. Will you vote for the new aircraft carrier? I can’t possibly do that. We’re supposed to work to reduce government spending. Suppose you got a subsidy for planting new wheat varieties and a 150% tax rebate on farm machines? Throw in a four-lane bridge across the Muddy River and I’ll vote to send troops to XXX as well. And so important decisions depend on matters that have nothing to do with the question being considered, and promises made at election time are thrown out the window.

1.8 Slogans rule! A candidate who says clearly what he or she means to do is immediately at a disadvantage with respect to those who offer meaningless formulas. A well-defined policy can be attacked, misrepresented, quoted out of context, and ridiculed. Slogans like It’s time, Yes, we can and so forth have too little meaning in them to be capable of being distorted, though they help to rally the party faithful.

1.9 The information the public receives from the media is always incomplete and biased, often grotesquely so. The media depend on advertising revenue, and even in the absence of overt pressure, self-censor their news content. To keep their readership or audience, and hence their revenue, they sensationalise their reports: nothing sells like fear. Also, given the pressures on editors, it is not surprising that even the best sometimes uncritically reprint or broadcast propaganda prepared by spin doctors. The media’s tendency to treat elections as sporting events, besides polarising the electorate, focuses on the fortunes of the candidates and the parties, not on their policies. [8] (Even in this shallow treatment they can be grotesquely wrong. [9]) Commercial television, in particular, favours the ten-second sound bite rather than any detailed discussion of policies or past performance. [10]

To the older media (press, radio, TV), we must now add social media and the internet itself. In 2016, over 60% of American users of Facebook and Twitter use them