| Evaluative Democracy--Summary |
Contents:
Western or liberal democracy, characterized periodic multi-party elections, is not working for the benefit of western and non-western people. On the contrary, it has proven itself to be working for the benefit of the few, through an autocratic hierarchical framework, in which dominant candidates and parties and their supporters have dominant means to influence and manipulate the people to vote a certain way. This hierarchical, undemocratic structure is present in all western democracies, including proportional systems like in New Zealand and Ireland.
The democratic failure of the western political system can be attributed to the process itself, whereby the emphasis on totals of votes produces a self-interested drive on the part of candidates and parties to get the most votes, and to get the most votes they rely on political influence and manipulation.
Also, due to the interconnectedness of things, the voter him or herself is incomplete, and thereby is unavoidably subject to the influence and/or manipulation in his or her decision-making.
Moreover, advancement in communication technology, in which one media source can reach millions of people, unequal ownership of media (e.g. nine media companies control the U.S. media), and capitalism (self-centered system based on profit) in which significant financial inequalities are produced, compounds the western political emphasis on influence and manipulation to the point of producing extreme hierarchies of political power like the U.S. Republicans and Democrats, and the New Zealand Labour Party and National Party.
The current western or liberal democratic system is a democratically broken system. It needs to be replaced with a more democratic system, which means taking political power away from the few who currently have it, and giving it back to the people.
A new, more democratic political system needs to emerge to replace the undemocratic western or liberal democratic system. That is the first step for political change. (The second step is implementing the change from one system to other.) And mistake not, the political control of the few through western or liberal democracy will only get worse overtime. People need to act. This point is proven through the global spread of western or liberal democracy through huge western financing (using public monies), and in which by 2096 according to academic sources, the entire world’ population will be under the western or liberal democratic system.
What is the way forward? What is a more democratic system?
Any new system, which professes to be more democratic, must deal with the basis for the current autocratic hierarchy, and the emphasis on influence and manipulation.
Remove the autocratic hierarchy and replace elections with a more democratic process, and the political system should be more democratic.
This removal of autocratic hierarchy and movement away from mere elections are the primary focuses and benefits of the new system, Evaluative Democracy, we are proposing.
Evaluative Democracy is a democratic evaluative process comprised of two processes. First, citizen evaluation committees (three for each constituency) would evaluate political candidates (from a constituency) and their policies and visions, in terms of the better interest of the constituency. Second, the public from the constituency would vote on the evaluations to determine who is the political representative for the constituency.
Note, the same evaluative, elective process would be applied (on a national scale) to determine, for example, the President of a country. (In such a scenario, citizen evaluation committees from every region of a country would evaluate the presidential candidates and their policies and visions, and then the people of the country would vote on the evaluations to determine the president.)
Once in power, political representatives would be required to make government decisions based on the collective interest of a constituency, or region, or country. Moreover, to hold political representatives further accountable, their decision-making and conduct would be subject to citizen-initiated referendums, and subject to evaluation in forthcoming determinations/elections.
Determinations/elections of political representatives would occur every four years.
Members of the Citizen Evaluation Committees
Membership on the Citizen Evaluation Committees is open to any adult in each constituency. There is three-tier process to get on the committees:
1. Citizens within a constituency would submit a participation form to the local election administration stating they want to be on the committees.
2. Citizens who had submitted forms to be on the committees would be tested in terms of their evaluation skills. The test would be a microcosm of what they would be expected to do on the committees. In other words, there would be two political candidates and their policies and backgrounds, and the citizens would have to evaluate the candidates in terms of the better interest of a hypothetical consistency. The citizens would receive a point of a maximum total of 15, for each valid, relevant comparison they make, and 5 points for making the correct determination. A minimum score of 14 out of 20 possible points is required to be considered for the citizen committees. (The testing is important, because it establishing whether a citizens is suitable for being on the citizens evaluation committees.)
3. The citizens who pass the evaluation test, would then be randomly selected to be on the citizen committees. Also, a chief evaluator for each committee would be randomly selected from the citizens with the highest evaluation test scores.
The main requirement of the citizen evaluation committees is to evaluate political candidates in terms of the better interest of a constituency as a whole. Citizens themselves are evaluated and held accountability in their ability to represent the better interest by election administrators. A member of a citizen committee can be removed from it or even charged for misconduct by electoral administrators, if it is shown that the member is acting contrary to the principle of determining through objective evaluation which candidate is in the better interest of a constituency. Also, the public is the final evaluator of the citizens committees, because the public has the final say as to who is the political representative.
The committees operate independent of each other.
Within a particular committee, citizens would evaluate different aspects of the candidates, (like one group environmental policies and another group economic policies), and then the evaluations would be brought together in order to make the determination of the better representative.
Each committee would attempt to reach unanimous agreement, and if that were not attainable within a reasonable time, the selected chief evaluator would make the final determination.
Reasons themselves in relation to the better interest of a constituency, would be the guiding principle of the evaluations.
Summaries of the evaluations would be disclosed to the people of a constituency. Also, the people of a constituency would have access to the full evaluation.
Collective interest refers to the overall well-being of all citizens of a constituency.
The overall well-being, in a particular evaluation, would be determined by a comparative evaluation of the candidates. For instance, is Candidate A’s environmental policy with no concrete proposals in the better interest of Constituency D, than Candidate B’s environmental policy within specific proposals for preserving the environment?
Though a degree of subjectivity cannot be avoided regardless of the system or evaluation, the important consideration is that citizen evaluators are guided by the collective interest of a constituency, so that at least the focus of the evaluations are in the right direction. And this direction is aided by a need for citizen evaluators to logically defend their evaluations in terms of the collective interest.
For those critics who think the “collective interest” is too indefinable to be of use, we ask you to consider whether, clean air is in the better interest over polluted air,
The methodology for evaluation by the citizen committees is the following:
Focus on reason themselves in terms of the collective interest of a constituency.
Categorize different parts of the evaluation, like policies on health, environment, economy, expertise of candidates, experience of candidates, character of candidates, and then bring the conclusions made on the different parts together and evaluate them to the make the determination of which candidate is in the better interest of a constituency.
The actual evaluations themselves would focus on the comparative soundness of the candidates’ information. For instance, is Candidates B’s economic policy for a new industrial area more sound than Candidate C’s economic policy of increased government assistance for small and medium sized businesses, in terms of the collective interest?
Candidates’ policies, for example, which have similar comparative soundness, would be evaluated based on their clearness and completeness. For example, is Candidate F’s policy for protecting the local watershed more clear and complete than Candidate G’s policy for protecting the local watershed?
As consistent with the goal of minimizing political influence and manipulation, political candidates’ campaigns would be limited to three public speeches, three debates (involving all candidates vying to be the political representative for a constituency), and three public question and answer.
There would be no road signs (barring public announcements regarding the determination/election) and no media ads.
Money would have a limited role in determining who is the political representative.
A key issue which needs to be resolved is how to minimize independent media sources’ means to influence and/or manipulate the voting public? A law which required independent media sources to give fair, accurate, equal coverage to all candidates vying to be a political representative may be helpful and in the collective interest.
Because it is difficult for independents to form a cohesive government, political organizations have a role in bringing like-minded candidates together to form a government.
However, the role of political organizations would be limited to this organizational role. And the citizen evaluations would still come down to the collective interest, so that an independent candidate with better policies and visions for a constituency would be determined over candidates from political organizations.
Minimizes the role of political influence and manipulation by making the focus of elections on citizen evaluations which are based on the collective interest.
Minimizes political campaigning.
Minimizes the role of political organizations and money.
Establishes accountability of political and governmental decision-making through the standard of collective interest.
Also, any comments on this summary of Evaluative Democracy, or suggestions for improving Evaluative Democracy, please send your comments and/or suggestions to Evaluative Democracy
~ Main Premise ~
~ Way Forward ~
~ New, More Democratic System ~
~ Key Clarifications ~
~ Members of the Citizen Evaluation Committees ~
~ Decision-making Process of the Citizen Evaluation Committees ~
~ Defining "collective interest" ~
~ Methodology for Evaluation ~
~ Liimited Campaigning for Political Candidates ~
~ Role of Political Organizations ~
~ Benefits of Evaluative Democracy ~
Main Premise:
Way Forward
New, More Democratic System
Key clarifications:
Decision-making process of the Citizens Evaluation Committees
Defining “collective interest”
clean drinking water is in the better interest over contaminated drinking water;
reasonable level of urban congestion is in the better interest over unreasonable level of urban congestion;
allowing dogs to run loose in a city is in the better interest over not allowing dogs to run loose in a city;
economic development for the few is in the better interest over economic development for the many;
low income housing development in an area suitable for it is in the better interest over low income housing development in an area unsuitable for it?
Methodology for Citizen Evaluations
Limited Campaigning by Political Candidates
Role of Political Organizations
Benefits of Evaluative Democracy
For more information please visit Evaluative Democracy website