Cascade Democracy

Two years ago I posted an idea that had been percolating in my head for a while.

With the recent expenses debacle, this idea is even more worthy of further examination.

The idea, in summary, is to make each level of government the electorate of the next level, with candidates drawn solely from that electorate. For example, the local council is made up of 100* people from the area, each of whom stood for election to represent the 100 households that included their own. This council elect one of those 100 people to represent them to their regional assembly, which is a collection of 100 local councils. The regional assembly elect one of their number for the national government, and so on.

The point of this system is that every candidate can have a personal interaction and understanding with every member of their electorate. What is more, every representative at the higher levels retains their role(s) as representative at the lower levels, so a member of the national parliament would simultaneously have to perform their duties at regional and local level. What is more, any of those three constituencies would have the right to recall the representative, having the effect of denying them the right to remain in any higher post.

For example, let's say that Joe Bloggs of 47 Acacia Avenue, Newtown, Southshire, England stands for election to represent N^os1-100 Acacia Avenue. He wins because he is well respected and his neighbours appreciate his honesty and intelligence.

After a few years serving on the Newtown Council there is an election for a representative to serve Newtown at the Southshire Assembly. He is nominated and gets elected because the 78 other Councillors in Newtown have grown to respect his integrity and clear debating style.

Things carry on for a few more years, and Joe serves on both the Assembly and Council. He regularly talks to his neighbours and the other Councillors, and always takes their views into account when he votes. He has even taken advantage of an online straw-poll system to let his constituents know what votes are coming up soon, and how he intends to vote and why. Whenever the poll goes against his advice, he scrupulously follows the mandate, despite his personal feelings. One or two of his fellows failed to do this, and they were rapidly recalled.

Then the long-serving MP for Southshire retires, having been told by the Assembly to support a windfarm subsidy and deciding that he could not. The 35 Assemblymen decide to send Joe to Parliament, considering him their best candidate. Joe now spends three days a week in London, One at the Assembly building in Southshireham, and one back in Newtown covering Council business. His remaining time is spent talking to constituents and spending time with his family.

Joe is a Councillor, Assemblyman and MP all at the same time. He cannot forget any of his constituencies, because they can recall him at any time. If he moves house away from Acacia Avenue, he will immediately lose his eligibility for the seat. If his conscience forces him to vote against the wishes of any one of his electorates, he can be recalled and replaced in under a week.

This is pure personality politics. It is not a person's party affiliation or policies that get them elected, it is their ability to carry out the wishes of the people they represent. There is no need for a party machine, because the electorate is never larger than a few hundred people, and every individual in the electorate can communicate directly with the candidate if they wish, and he has time to reply and the personal relationship with them to make the reply meaningful.

Now some might say that the Assemblyman for Newtown is only answerable to the 78 Councillors and 200-odd residents of Acacia Avenue, which leaves the other 150,000 voters of Newtown out in the cold. This is far from the truth. Each Councillor will advise their constituents how they plan to vote for the next Assemblyman, and offer them reasons. They are at liberty to mandate him to vote differently. In effect, although only 78 votes will be cast, every resident of Newtown will have had their say.

Because constituency sizes are always very similar, each of the 78 votes will, in effect, be a block vote. However there will be some variation when, say, a student area with an average of four adults per household elects one Councillor and a block of Council flats with an average of one adult per household does. This could be overcome by varying the wards by occupancy rates, but I feel this is unnecessary. Council tax is currently levied per household, and many local services are on a per household basis. Moreover, occupancy rates are seldom equally high or equally low across large groups of households, so the problem will be relatively infrequent.

The title of this blog post is Cascade Democracy because I feel this system allows greater democratic accountability by cascading voting onto each level. It will create a greater involvement and a greater sense of responsibility among voters, as well as changing the relationship of politicians to their constituents fundamentally for the good.

Addendum

As always, I really should search Google before I imply any idea I have is original. In this case, I even managed to coin the same term used elsewhere!

Cascade Democracy on the Web
• Exploring Democracy defines my concept as Cascade Democracy with Delegates.
• Michael Allan Discussing the mathematics of cascades.

---

* As before, 100 is for illustration purposes. It might be seen as the upper limit, with smaller numbers used according to geographic convenience. I think the 100 household number should be fairly fixed, however, with deviations of no more than 10 houses allowed.

Why Democracy Fails

I think democracy fails because those who represent the electorate are not directly accountable to them, and the electorate has no chance to discuss matters with them. It fails because the person elected is seeking approval and endorsement from thousands, if not millions of people they have never - can never - meet.

I have been considering an alternative for many years. It flies in the face of what people consider to be true democracy, but I believe it offers a more responsive and responsible form of governance.

First of all, every locality of 100* households elects a representative for themselves - who must be a resident in one of those households. 100 of these representatives form the local or borough council, representing 10,000 households.

The local council then elects from its membership a chairperson or speaker and a regional representative. 100 councils elect 100 regional representatives sit on the regional council, which is responsible for around 1 million households.

Then the region elects their own speaker and a national representative, who sits on the national parliament (100 million households) with the other regional electives.

Finally, all the national parliaments elect one of their own to sit on a world parliament, to replace the UN and adopt some state sovereignty in a manner similar to the EU (not the US, as the federal government has too much sovereignty over the states, and abuses it constantly). This world government would elect, from its membership, a world president.

Most importantly, any constituency may, at any time, convene a recall election that can replace their representative with another member of their group.

This means that the 100 households where the world president lives can, at any time, depose him. So might the 100 local representatives he is supposed to represent. So might the regional council, and so might his or her own national government.

At each level the representatives will be able to know all the names and concerns of his whole constituency. Every vote would count because you would not be voting for a name with a party affiliation, but for your neighbour, or the colleague you have been debating budgets with for three years.

While it is true that with this system, not everyone gets to vote for the people at the top, it is also true that the people at the top can never forget their original constituency, and they can never forget that the people at each level of the heirarchy have a similar vulnerability to a recall by ordinary people. It would lead to a fairly fluid make-up of each council, since representatives would stay in place until they are recalled, but they can be recalled at, perhaps, less than a week's notice.

This system also allows the party systems of most democracies to be abolished. They are inherently corrupt as representatives put loyalty to their party above that to their constituency. And as has been all too obvious lately, getting millions of people to vote for you is expensive and that means you can easily be bought off by corporate interests.

Getting elected by 100 people, on the other hand, is relatively cheap and can be a matter of simply talking to them over a meal a few at a time. Getting elected by other politicians, moreover, means that your currency is no longer currency, but the political motivations and bugbears of your electorate.

That is democracy.

* all values are approximate and can be adjusted to reflect local geography and existing political divisions.