Read on Twitter
I'm a political philosopher. My research involves thinking about democracy.
Electoral democracy can be hard to do at local level. But here's a proposal for making it work.
A THREAD
Electoral democracy can be hard to do at local level. But here's a proposal for making it work.
A THREAD
CASE STUDY: In NZ we've had elections for District Health Boards (DHBs) for a while. But hasn't worked well and there are plans to replace it by ministerial appointments.
It's been plagued by a bunch of problems that could have been predicted by political scientists:
It's been plagued by a bunch of problems that could have been predicted by political scientists:
1. Low voter turnout, related to...
2. Very low public knowledge about candidates
3. Very low public knowledge about performance of incumbents.
4. As a result, those elected to DHBs have had uneven competence.
5. The DHBs are now seen as weak point in the health system.
2. Very low public knowledge about candidates
3. Very low public knowledge about performance of incumbents.
4. As a result, those elected to DHBs have had uneven competence.
5. The DHBs are now seen as weak point in the health system.
It makes sense, in some ways, then to revert to ministerial appointment. Not least because it then becomes possible to control for the representativeness on the DHBs of, e.g. Māori - an important goal.
But democratic accountability via elections also has attractions, even for DHBs. For instance, it encourages responsiveness to local communities, and not merely responsiveness to ministerial directives.
Here's the idea:
Delegate the task of assessing and voting on candidates to a randomly chosen sample of (say 100) local registered voters. These voters would decide on behalf of the citizens of the district.
Delegate the task of assessing and voting on candidates to a randomly chosen sample of (say 100) local registered voters. These voters would decide on behalf of the citizens of the district.
Like jury duty, the randomly selected voters would be required to take part in a selection process over say 2 days, at the end of which they would vote and elect the board.
The 2 days would be used to do the sorts of things we typically expect in recruitment processes: review CVs, meet and interview candidates, receive information from other sources about the candidates (e.g. letters of recommendation and collated media reports).
Admin support could really make this a high quality process. e.g. An independent body could supply reports on the performance of the incumbent board.
Random selection (sortition) was central to Athenian democracy. It is being used again increasingly in democratic experiments around the world.
I haven't heard of sortition being used as a tool WITHIN electoral processes, but I'm sure my colleagues with more knowledge about democratic innovations can supply examples. #Delibdem #delibwave
@jgastil @ClaudiaChwalisz
@jgastil @ClaudiaChwalisz
In any case, if we think outside the box we could make DHBs and any number of other bodies accountable to the people in more meaningful and more intelligent ways than simply employing mass voting.
Interested in responses to this proposal!
Interested in responses to this proposal!
