| Evaluative Democracy--Summary |
Contents:
Western or liberal democracy, characterized by 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 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 the existing system to the more democratic system.) 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’s 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 a main process: citizen evaluation committees (three for each constituency) would evaluate political candidates (from a constituency) and their policies, visions, basic budgets, and backgrounds in terms of the better interest of the constituency. There are different types of Evaluative Democracy which could then be applied. Types of Evaluative Democracy
Note, the same evaluative 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.) Models of Evaluative Democracy
Once in power, political representatives would be required to make governmental 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 evaluations, and evaluation in forthcoming determinations.
Determinations/elections of political representatives would occur every three 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 determination administration stating they want to be on the committees.
2. Citizens wanting to be on the Committees would be required to take an evaluation test. A minium test score is required to be considered for the random selection process.
3. The citizens, who attained at least the minium test score, 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.
The intent of the evaluation test is to ensure quality of result, within limits, by the Citizen Evaluation Committees. Evaluations and ultimately the determinations require intelligence and the ability to perceive the different weights of reasons. Evaluations and determinations can be complex. Therefore, it is important that citizens reasonably competent in the area of evaluation (which includes analytical reasoning and strong organizational skills) be on the Committees, and citizens which are not reasonably competent in the area of evaluation are not. The focus for the formation of the Committees should be on the collective interest, and thereby getting the most suited citizens within limits on them.
The Evaluation Test itself would be a microcosm of what citizens would be expected to do on the evaluation committees: there would be two candidates and their policies and backgrounds, and defined terms like collective interest. The candidates for the Committees would be required to evaluate the candidates in terms of the collective interest. They would receive a mark for each point made, and five marks for making the correct determination. Twenty marks are attainable, and a minium score of 14 or 70% is required to pass. The candidates would have thirty minutes to do the test, which is administered by the election bureacracy.
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.
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 committee would require through vote 65% agreement on a particular determination, and if that is not attainable within a reasonable time, the 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.
From the Oxford English dictionary, collective refers to “representing a number of individuals; giving the group priority over the individual; a group or community of people bound together by common beliefs or interests.”
Collective equates to the community or society. Collective interest equated to community or society interest (as a whole).
Keys questions: What is the collective basis of a constituency?? What are the mutual, common beliefs or interests of citizens of a constituency?? What are the community priorities rather individual priorities?
Basic needs of a community as an example:
Clean water and air
A public forum prior to a determination/election would take place to determine the collective interest, or basic community priorities for a constituency.
The citizen evaluation committees would be required to base their evaluations on these basic community priorities.
The methodology for evaluation by the citizen committees is the following:
Focus on reason themselves in terms of the collective interest of a constituency.
There would be five sub-subsections for the evaluation of candidates:
Backgrounds
The citizen evaluation committees would quantify each sub-section to establish degree of separation between candidates, and rank to show order of candidates in each subsection and overall.
Each sub-section would have the same evaluation weight.
The percentage differences between canidates in each sub-section would be combined to determine degree of separation overall between candidates.
Quantification of evaluation:
Background:
Time as resident 1-10 values
Maximum score of 50 for Background sub-section.
Specificness 1-10 values
Maximum score of 30 for Policies sub-section.
Relevancy to basic priorities 1-10
Maximum score of 10 for Visions sub-section.
Demonstration of character 1-10 (Incumbent evaluation used partly to establish character of incumbents)
Maximum score of 10 for Character sub-section.
Correlation between past record and past promises and pledges 1-10
Maximum score of 20 for Incumbent sub-section.
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. Although, Independent Evaluative Democracy deals with the media issue by having no political parties and no voting, so that the political process is through Public Forums and Citizen Evaluation Committees.
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. However, in Independent Evaluative Democracy there would be no political parties.
Minimizes the role of political influence and manipulation by making the focus of political determinations on citizen evaluations which are based on the collective interest.
Minimizes political campaigning.
Minimizes or eliminates the role of political organizations.
Minimizes the role of money.
Establishes accountability of political and governmental decision-making through the standard of collective interest.
~ Main Premise ~
~ Way Forward ~
~ New, More Democratic System ~
~ Key Clarifications ~
~ Members of the Citizen Evaluation Committees ~
~ Evaluation Test ~
~ 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:
Evaluation Test
Decision-making process of the Citizens Evaluation Committees
Defining “collective interest”
Employment
Preserved environment
Minimal congestion, pollution
Quality of life.
Financial soundness/stability.
The results of the forum would define collective interest for the community, and thereby be basis for the citizen evaluations.
Methodology for Citizen Evaluations
Policies
Visions
Character
Incumbents past performance (comparison of past record and past pledges and promises)
Education 1-10 values
Professional experience 1-10 values
Political experience 1-10 values
Volunteer experience 1-10 values
Policies: evaluation based on policies stemming from basic priorities of constituency
Relevancy (broadness) 1-10 values
Soundness 1-10 values
Visions: evaluation based partly on visions stemming from basic priorities of constituency
Idea 1-10
Character: based on the type of character needed through basic priorities of constituency
Incumbents:
Past record (i.e. what did the incumbent do while in office) 1-10
Limited Campaigning by Political Candidates
Role of Political Organizations
Benefits of Evaluative Democracy
Any comments on this summary of Evaluative Democracy, or suggestions for improving Evaluative Democracy, please send to Evaluative Democracy.