Look, I’m as delighted as you are to see Alex Jones’ ability to spread
hatred curtailed – because in a world where all the important speech
takes place online, and where online speech is owned by four or five
companies, being kicked off of Big Tech’s services is likely to be an
extinction-level event.
And yeah, it’s cute to see him wander from platform to platform, looking for a home, while “Conservatives” wake up and discover
that 40 years of Ronald Reagan antitrust-lite policies have given a
handful of shareholder-driven tech companies control over public
discourse (I call it “reaganfreude”).
But as David Greene – civil liberties director at the Electronic
Frontier Foundation – writes in the Washington Post, the big picture
here is terrible.
The platforms’ version of policing bad speech is sloppy, capricious and
arbitrary. People get censored for discussing terrorist atrocities,
while actual videos of terrorist atrocities stay up. Millions of
accounts are disconnected for being bots, with no recourse for actual
activists who are caught like dolphins in that big ole tuna net. Real
protests are delisted for being “inauthentic,” while Nazis organize in
the open.
Greene has a very, very modest proposal for how the platforms should conduct censorship, based on the widely accepted “Santa Clara Principles” on Transparency and Accountability in Content Moderation:
1. The companies should publish up-to-date stats on which posts and accounts they’ve shut down;
2. The companies should notify you when your post or account is flagged or removed;
3. You should have a right to appeal takedowns, and the rules should be evenhandedly enforced.
These are, as I say, modest goals. They’re a lot more likely to produce
good takedowns and healthy online forums that disconnecting people by
the millions using algorithms, or picking them off one by one only when
the public outcry gets loud enough.
The problem is we’ve given these companies this power by allowing them to build monopolies. And companies are less likely to allow us rights than our pale excuse for democratic goverments are.
What we need is the good representative democracy that can be achieved with Proportional Representation.
“I had failed to see the advantage of having a vote that might leave me after an election a disfranchised voter instead of an unenfranchised woman.” —Catherine Helen Spence
Even before Australian (or any) women had the vote, Catherine Helen Spence understood that a vote that doesn’t count isn’t an improvement on no vote at all.
Defenders of the status quo argue that Proportional Representation leads to back room deals. Proportional Representation And it is indeed true that Proportional Representation forces political parties to compromise and work together in order to govern.
But those aren’t back room deals. Voters know it is going on and can see the results and understand why they happen.
If your party sells out its core values, you can express your displeasure by electing a different candidate who might actually represent you in the next election.
First Past The Post The back room deals that are democratically worrisome are the ones that happen within big tent parties. Big tent parties are based on elaborate back room deals. Parties that used to have a recognizable ideology – something they actually stand for – merge with other parties, not because of shared valued, but because it is necessary if your party is going to be able to gain power.
The goings on in these back rooms are so mysterious and secretive that even MPs and party members don’t know which promises their party will even try to keep if they win an election. Such things are decided in back rooms.
Once in a while we can see how it really works.
Following the BRexit vote, the new UK PM Theresa May called a snap election intending to build stronger support for a “hard” BRexit, but in fact lost support resulting in a snap election. The deal she made with the extremist DUP to keep power horrified many Brits.
When no party won a majority in the recent British Columbia Election, then Premier Christy Clark was willing to throw everything her party stood for under the bus in order to retain power. Luckily the other BC Parties were able to reach a compromise.
These are the backroom deals we can all do without.
A Justice department attorney representing the people owed money by
Toys R Us doesn’t believe the bankrupt corporation should pay lavish
bonuses to the same executives who drove the toy store chain into the
ground.
Australia Proportional Representation Society of Australia http://prsa.org.au/ (desperately needs Proportional Representation in the lower house) @GeoffreyHPowell
Gender Parity in Parliament? Not with Preferential Ballot (aka Alternative Vote)
The lessons of Australia are very informative. With the same people voting in Proportional and Winner-Take-All elections at the same time, it’s a perfect petrie dish for studying the difference between STV and AV.
Without its Proportional Senate, there wouldn’t have been any women at all elected between 1951 and 1965. And look how few women are elected to the House of Representatives.
This graph (based on Australian government data) demonstrates the truth of Fair Vote Canada’s maxim that “fair voting elects more women naturally.”
Countries electing the truly representative Parliaments possible with Proporttional Representation don’t need to rely on quotas, or Prime Ministerial largesse in order to include women’s voices in democratic governance.
Gender Parity in Parliament? Not with Preferential Ballot (aka Alternative Vote)
The lessons of Australia are very informative. With the same people voting in Proportional and Winner-Take-All elections at the same time, it’s a perfect petrie dish for studying the difference between STV and AV.
Without its Proportional Senate, there wouldn’t have been any women at all elected between 1951 and 1965. And look how few women are elected to the House of Representatives.
This graph (based on Australian government data) demonstrates the truth of Fair Vote Canada’s maxim that “fair voting elects more women naturally.”
Countries electing the truly representative Parliaments possible with Proporttional Representation don’t need to rely on quotas, or Prime Ministerial largesse in order to include women’s voices in democratic governance.
I feel like this would be a slippery slope towards making it illegal for people to choose to not vote.
that’s already how it is in australia
That’s just so fucked up. :( Do certain medical conditions exempt you?
?????? why is it be fucked up to have compulsory voting? that’s the way it is in most democratic countries? it’s a part of being a citizen, like paying taxes and obeying speed limits? the fine for not voting is only like $50 and because of the compulsory voting law, our country bends over backwards to make it accessible: it’s always on a weekend, lasts most of the day, and is set up at schools and community centers so there’s one within easy reach of almost everybody. you can also mail your ballot or vote early if you’ll be out of the country on the day. like, IT’S EASY TO VOTE, and the penalty isn’t even that ridiculous. i don’t understand why the usa doesn’t have this, except obviously it would make it harder to literally stop minorities from voting.
I think we Americans tend to forget that a lot of other countries don’t actively work to make it harder to vote.
Adding to this here, in Australia you don’t have to vote. Or, more precisely, there’s no way they can tell if you ruined your ballot. You have to turn up, get your name marked off, but you can put a line through the ballot if you don’t think any of the candidates are worth voting for. Or do this:
Or this:
Or this:
You have get your name crossed off (if you don’t want to wear the fine), but you don’t have to make your vote counted if you’re opposed to it.
And it is so, so easy to vote. Stuck at work or on holidays? That’s fine. Do a postal vote. Stuck in hospital? That’s fine. They’ll go to you. Stuck in an old people’s home and can’t get around? Again, they’ll go to you. It’s amazing to me that it’s so hard for so many Americans to actually vote. If you make it compulsory, than at least the government is obligated to provide you with the means to vote.
And look, I get it. Sometimes I don’t want to vote either. But I suck it up, I walk three minutes down the street, and I hope that this year they’re selling lamingtons again. Oh, and I buy a democracy sausage, which, even if all the candidates suck, makes the effort of turning up pretty worthwhile.
ALSO, you can see even on the fucked up ballots that you NUMBER CANDIDATES IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE. There’s no need to calculate whether I would be throwing away my vote on the candidate that I most agree with if they’re not from a major party. I can say, I want that independent person to get in, but if not them, give me Big Party A, and if not them, that minor party person is still better that Big Party B, and I’m not giving any preference to the Lunatic Fringe Party.
Our system certainly has some issues still, but I can show up to somewhere nearby, line up for a few minutes (if at all), vote exactly in line with my values (on paper, leaving a paper trail that can be recounted), and then buy a sausage and some home made cupcakes on my way out.
A country’s voting system matters a hell of a lot and every citizen deserves one that makes it easy to vote and results in a government that is representational and accountable.
And by the way, one time I had a bad asthma flare-up on Election Day and didn’t make it to my polling station. I got my fine in the mail, I filled out the form explaining why I couldn’t vote, no more fine. I would rather have, you know, expressed my preference for who should run my country, but they were cool with the fact that I couldn’t do it that day.
“oh no, what if people actually have to participate in picking the government officials who will impact their lives” jesus christ
EVERYONE SHOULD VOTE. IT’S YOUR CIVIL DUTY TO VOTE. IT’S YOUR RIGHT AS A CITIZEN.
This is an example of a voting ballot in New Zealand. You register to vote, you show up, get your name crossed off, get your ballot form and make TWO (2) ticks: one for your preferred candidate and one for you preferred party. That is it.
Even referendum are this easy.
Elections are held on a Saturday, although advanced voting is available prior to election day. Voting is not compulsory, although many believe registration should be. Registration can be done online or by post.
Employers are legally required to allow you the time necessary to vote and polling stations are everywhere. Registered voters are sent a card to enable easy identification at the polling station.
If you are away from your home electorate you can cast a ‘special’ vote, these are also available for New Zealand citizens and permanent residents who are, or will be, overseas.
If you are
in hospital
and cannot make it to a polling stating on election day, they come to you. Arrangements are even made for those with mobility/disability issues that enable them to vote.
Proportional Representation is needed for representative democracy.
Compulsory registration with or without compulsory voting is good. Ranked ballots are great if its in multimember ridings. That’s called Single Transferable Vote (STV), and that’s the system that 57.75 of BC voters voted to implement in their first Electoral Reform Referendum. The fact that it didn’t get implemented in a country where 39% can deliver a “majority” federal government really tells you why we still don’t have fair voting in Canada, even though the calls for fairness predate confederation.
“The case for [Proportional Representation] is fundamentally the same as that for Representative Democracy. Only if an assembly represents the full diversity of opinion within a nation can its decisions be regarded as the decisions of the nation itself.” — Encyclopedia Britannica
