Democracy - Suggestions For Better Politics and Politicians

Churchill is quoted as saying, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others." How right he was! I believe the main cause is because democratic politics, the way they are currently designed, will inevitably lead to a two-party polarization that happens with the parties, which results in many trickle down problems. 

I have some thoughts on this, and potential 'fixes'. Please read and comment with your suggestions to improve it further.

Terms of Service

In many conversations I have had and articles I have read, I have often found a phrase that intrigues me. It goes something like this "The best person to have in government is the person who doesn't want to be there". In most professions, I would say this is a mistake, after all wouldn't you want someone who is passionate about what they are doing to be fixing your car, building your house, or performing your surgery? I know a lot of people who are fantastic at their jobs, but do they want to be there? Not really. They are passionate about doing their job right, and excel at it, but they would be the first to tell you that the work they do isn't where they would prefer to be.

Politics should be the same way. There are too many "career politicians". A politician should be there to serve the people they are working for. Instead, we have a picture of the people of the county, province, or country holding the politicians up on their self-made pedestal.

Government leadership roles at all levels (Mayor, Members of Parliament, City Council, Prime Minister, etc.) should be allowed to serve a maximum of 2 terms, and then must step back or move to a different role, and cannot go back to the same role for at least 2 terms. In addition to the pay changes described below in the Updated Pay Structure section, this would prevent some of the "career politicians" from exploiting the current structure.

I don't think it is right to have someone serve their 2 terms and never be able to return. That experience merits they continue to serve if they want to, but there also needs to be time to step away and remember what its like to be a "normal" citizen.

Allow for a Non-Confidence Vote

Public Voting

I have heard many times people say things like

• "There is no one good enough to vote for, so I am not voting for anyone!"
• "I am tired of having to pick the 'best' of all the evils, so I am not voting this time!"
• "I read the candidates/parties, and they all suck! I am not voting"

But what does this tell the politicians? What does it say to anyone doing analysis and reporting on the vote after the fact? Not much. It tells them that a certain percentage of people did not vote - and that is pretty much where the story ends. The same can be said if you just spoil the ballot so no vote is cast; it doesn't really send the message someone might hope that it does.

Imagine, though, if on every ballot, at every level of government, there was a "Non-Confidence" box that you can mark. Imagine a vote that is counted, and the "Non-Confidence" entry wins. What message does that send to the people who are running for those positions? It sends the message that the citizens who voted do not trust any of the candidates, and they all need to go back to the drawing board to re-write their platforms. And that would require that the candidate and parties get out and speak to the people in their constituencies to find out the details, why was the vote Non-Confident? What are the issues that are pressing that need to be addressed? When the next vote is held, you can be sure the parties will have done their homework, and revised their platforms.

Party Voting

This should also apply to members of parliament who are casting votes for bills. In the current system, if even a single member of the party in power votes against a bill that was proposed, this is considered non-confidence in the party in power and a new vote is held, and everyone is basically out of a job. This is not a good environment for political discussion and freedom! 

Party members should be allowed to vote against a bill if they have strong reason to disagree with it, without fear of losing their job and upending the current government. This would send a message back to the party leaders that maybe the bill needs to be revised before it is brought forward again. 

If maybe ~20% or more of the party votes against it, then the non-confidence should go through. But this should possibly be a vote for new leadership in the party, and give that party a chance to clean things up a bit internally. If a second non-confidence vote happens again with the same bill that is over 20% of the party, then it would be obvious the party is having internal problems, and a new full vote should be implemented by the citizens to elect a new party to the leadership position.

Cabinet Make Up

This is supposed to be a democracy. But what happens when the Prime Minister gets into office? They appoint whoever they want to the roles that are available. This does NOT represent democracy! Here is a suggestion: what if the leader of the party is required to appoint cabinet members that represent the way the voting went? 

For example. lets say there are five parties that are in the federal election, A, B, C, D, and E. Party A wins, and the breakdown is like this (I know that in the real world it is based on seats and other factors from the provincial level, etc., but I am just using some percentages here for easy example):

1. Party A - 40%
2. Party B - 30%
3. Party C - 15 %
4. Party D - 10%
5. Party E - 5%

Using those numbers, the cabinet should be made of (assuming 36 members):

1. 14 from Party A
2. 11 from Party B
3. 5 from Party C
4. 4 from Party D
5. 2 from Party E

Again, I know this is an over-simplified example, but I hope the point comes across: this more accurately would represent what the people of the country actually voted for. What does this accomplish? Certainly in the beginning, arguments and frustration. =-)

Of course it would! Because we are so used to whatever the current leader says, everyone in opposition just tears it apart, even if that leader was actually correct. But what would a cabinet (or council, or oversight committee, etc.) do when they are forced to work together in a model like this? They would be forced to communicate, refine their ideas, and work harder to come to decisions that appeal to all involved. Yes, there would be concessions made, but it would stop some of the polarization of the voting system the way it currently is, because the new leader would be required by law to ensure that members of other parties were included based on the actual vote.

Updated Pay Structure

I borrowed this from another post I saw, and wanted to include it here. I think that the pay structure certainly needs to be fixed as well. This would be a good start.

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Member of Parliament collects a salary while in office and receives a 3 month pay when they are out of office, in order to allow them time to return to other work.

2. Members of Parliament participate in the Canadian Pension Plan. All funds in the Parliamentary retirement fund move to the CPP system. All future funds flow into the CPP system, and Parliament participates with the Canadian people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Members of Parliament can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Canadians do.

4. Members of Parliament are no longer able to vote themselves a pay raise. Parliamentary pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3% per term. Serving in government is supposed to be an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term's, then go home and back to work.

5. Members of Parliament must equally abide by all laws they impose on the Canadian people. There are too many cases of MPs or government staff not having to be accountable for their abuse of governmental process or power, when in fact they should be held to a higher standard overall.

Conclusion

I am not an political expert, but I am sick and tired of our current political mess, and think that things need to be overhauled in order to make them better. And I think there are a lot of people in our country that would, at the very least, agree with that sentiment.