Referendum
Live Polling to Inform the Implementation of Present-Day Public Opinion

Written in 2019 by Yannick D’Mello and Naomi Vingron for Canada’s National Student Paper Competition themed, “Blueprint 20×20” with inputs from Timothy Inglis

Cave-dwelling ‘civilisations’ prioritized survival over intellectualism. As knowledge grew but literacy did not, the need for a decision-making process was met by aristocracy or dictatorship. In time, the spread of education encouraged prominent thinkers and social influencers to participate in the process, resulting in a democratic government that emphasized the power of the people through representatives. For example, Canada’s Open Government Partnership recognizes that openness and transparency can improve accountability, trust, and offer citizens opportunities to participate in government (Government of Canada). This aligns with Plato’s democracy: through representatives, all people are included in the governing process and can make decisions about laws (Grube). Yet, as in Plato’s allegory of the cave, the underlying mechanism insinuates a certain level of ignorance (Grube). In the age of the internet – where the number of influential, well-educated citizens outside the Government exceeds those within, the generalization that the masses cannot govern themselves might be outdated. In a society where citizens can be as impactful as their political leaders, does this version of democracy still serve us best?

A keystone of the current system is that each individual has the freedom to vote, on the premise that at least one political party represents their respective permutation of stances on all issues. However in reality, voters must rank their virtues in order to sort themselves into a political bin, as defined by parties. Someone who is fiscally Conservative but socially Liberal must inevitably compromise virtues to participate in the democratic process. According to Plato, freedom is most important to a democracy, and these compromises are a consequence. This illusion of choice actually precludes our freedom and validates the conjecture that our identity can be represented by our choice of political bin (and rejection of other bins). However, an internet-savvy society in which socioeconomic status no longer restrains education, is more multidimensional than our system allows. The resultant dissent at the actions of a governing body when it misaligns with specific groups’ opinions can be seen in protests on Parliament Hill, activism movements (like Occupy and #metoo), and is vividly apparent in the polar switching of election-winning parties with supposedly opposing views (28 majority governments from 42 Canadian elections since 1867, with an even split between 11 Conservative and 16 Liberal) (“List of Canadian Federal General Elections”). There is an increased interest in direct citizen involvement in the political sphere.

In keeping with the words, “Our dedication to democracy and the institutions we have built are the foundation of our society. A continued belief in both will guide us correctly into the future.” (“Remarks by Liberal Party of Canada Leader”), we propose a platform for ongoing political discourse in the form of a live referendum. We respond to the Public Policy Forum report that advised transitioning to a “flat, flexible and forward thinking public service” (“Flat, FLexible and Forward-Thinking”), by advocating an open-sourced and networked government that mobilizes our diversity of intellect to stay relevant and informed.

Proposal

The ideal of ‘appropriate and personalized representation’ faces obstacles such as lack of information, inefficient voting methods, etc. We hope to make political leadership more accessible by capitalizing on advances in internet communication. The proposition is a novel platform of communication that goes beyond previously used methods of census, election, or referendum.

It is grounded in initiatives by P. E. Trudeau, who emphasized that “the democratic process requires the ready availability of true and complete information. In this way people can objectively evaluate the government’s policies.” (Rankin). It is bolstered by J. Trudeau’s well-received efforts in using social media to engage with the masses. It is acknowledged that “there are barriers that exist, providing challenges to government leaders as they seek to be agile” (Public Policy Forum, 2015). We address this by moving the focus from the politicians to the issues. Our platform would provide a convenient way for citizens to register their stance on specific issues without signing on to a party’s entire program.

Even at the birthplace of the political terms ‘right’ and ‘left’ during the French Revolution, the ‘right’ claimed representatives should be free to choose sides based on the issues rather than having to commit to one side entirely (Bobbio). Our platform enables people to get involved in the political process without such global declarations. Users can vote on each issue separately, and can discuss their opinion. Additionally, a person may also give their vote to whoever they trust to speak on their behalf. For example, one might like to give their activist colleague the right to use their vote on LGBTQ rights, or pass their vote regarding academia to their professor. This issue-based voting platform would be available as a website and smartphone application.

Similar concepts like VoteCompass in Canada and Wahl-O-Mat in Germany use questions to indicate the respondent’s alignment with each political party. Alternatively, Countable in the USA provides nonpartisan information about current issues and enables users to petition, comment, or contact politicians directly. While incorporating these attributes, the proposed application would directly involve both citizens and lawmakers through interactions that foster political involvement and public awareness. To be successful, the platform needs to be accessible, user-friendly, gamified, social, and secure.

Accessibility The platform will leverage accessibility-oriented technologies by ensuring its compatibility with any connected device, from a smartwatch to a public computer with internet.

User-friendliness. The app allows only four possible responses to a policy-related question. The responses Yes or No elicit a sense of fulfillment in a user by having declared a stance, and this provides encouragement to continue. There is also another option.

Gamification. If voter A feels that voter B has a more informed opinion on a specific issue, and supports B, then A can Proxy their vote to B. This effectively ‘tags’ A’s vote to B’s vote so that voter B’s stance is now worth two votes. This makes B a representative of A and increases B’s affluence on the platform. It also builds trust between representative and voter, fostered through the application.

Social. Users have the opportunity to explain and discuss their vote through comments. This social aspect would engage users so that they express their opinions frequently through the application rather than Abstaining.

Security. Each vote can be viewable to the Public, a specific Group, or kept Private. The login will follow stringent security measures equivalent to Government and banking websites. Registration would require an identity verification step in order to mitigate double-voting, fake profiles, or abuse of the comment option.

Implementation

Our aim is to offer a channel for registering one’s stances on issues. This generates a survey of the public opinion on any issue, which informs policymakers. However, the involvement of citizens and policymakers is necessary. Policymakers will use the application to ensure that their own stances are accurately represented. Citizens will use it to express theirs and view others’ stances on issues that are important to them. The app can also inform first-time voters on political parties and ideologies.

Certain roles are expected to emerge. Every user is a Voter. A Voter to whom a vote has been proxied, is a Representative. A representative’s vote counts for as many votes as those that have been proxied to them. Government servants are Facilitators who enact the will of society as stipulated by its policies (and informed by the app). Note that affluence in the app might encourage Representatives to become Facilitators. Finally, an Influencer adds insightful comments which gain popularity through Likes.

The anonymized information could inform campaigns, statistics, and research. This could be monetized. We recommend the initial launch as a pilot project in a city like Toronto that is representative of Canada’s linguistic, ethnic, and socioeconomic makeup. This reduces the risk before moving to a larger-scale, federal implementation.

Conclusion

The proposed application provides free, current, and unbiased information on issues in Canadian politics. It could bring attention to lesser known issues and facilitate critical thinking regarding contemporary issues. Such an accessible means for people to voice their opinions, could be used as a comprehensive polling and research tool, and a measure of Canada’s political climate. In the age of fake-news, this will be of great value to politicians as well as the public.

The platform complements our current system of democracy with an addition of decentralized aristocracy where merit determines an individual’s elevation to the position of a Representative. Nearly any member of today’s society can educate themselves beyond their profession and thus form opinions on a vast range of topics. While, in Plato’s terms, the masses are no longer ignorant, policymakers are not yet able to leverage the knowledge and diverse viewpoints of said masses. We have therefore elucidated the value of a tool that connects people with the government to foster a well-informed, collaborative political system.

References

“Agile Government: Responding to citizens’ changing needs.” Canada’s Public Policy Forum, 2015. Web. http://www.ppforum.ca/sites/default/files/Agile%20Government_WEB%203-30-2015.pdf

Bobbio, Norberto. Left and right: The significance of a political distinction. University of Chicago Press, 1996.

“Flat, FLexible and Forward-Thinking: Public Service Next.” Canada’s Public Policy Forum, March 2014. Web. http://www.ppforum.ca/sites/default/files/Flat%20Forward%20Flexible%20Final%20Report_0.pdf

Government of Canada. Open Government. Canada’s Plans to the Open Government Partnership. Ottawa, Ontario, 30 Nov 2017. http://open.canada.ca/en/content/canadas-plans-open-government-partnership

Grube, George MA, and C. D. C. Reeve. “Plato: Republic.” Indianapolis, IN: Hackett (1992).

“List of Canadian Federal General Elections.” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Web. 9 Dec. 2017, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_federal_general_elections

Rankin, T. Murray. Freedom of information in Canada: will the doors stay shut?: a research study. 1977.

“Remarks by Liberal Party of Canada Leader Justin Trudeau on the shootings in Ottawa.” Joyce Murray, Your Member of Parliament for Vancouver Quadra. Liberal, 23 Oct 2014. Web. http://jmurray.liberal.ca/fr/news-nouvelles/remarks-liberal-party-canada-leader-justin-trudeau-shootings-ottawa/