View of Athens from Pnyx, at dusk, 2015. To the left is Lycabettus, to the right Acropolis. Wikicommons\/ C Messier. Some rights reserved.<\/i><\/p>\n
The recent publication of Theresa
\nMay's Brexit deal incited a number of zealots in Parliament to throw various
\ntoys out of their prams so fast that it is hard to believe they had time to
\nread it. It has also provoked a great clamour for a "people's vote"
\nin another EU referendum.<\/p>\n
One of the arguments offered in favour of a second referendum is that the people
\ndidn't know what they were voting for in June 2016. Now, it is claimed, we have
\nthe details, so voters will be better informed. The idea that more than a
\nhandful of voters would read and digest the 585-page withdrawal document, along
\nwith supplementary papers on the proposed future trading arrangements between
\nBritain and the EU, shows that this line of argument is essentially spurious \u2013
\npromoted by those who simply want a different result from last time. They might
\nget a different result from last time, but that brings dangers of its own, as
\nmany commentators have pointed out, for example Richard
\nShrimsley in the FT, (October 8, 2018).<\/p>\n
There is, however, an alternative way
\nof "letting the people decide" on an issue where Members of
\nParliament seem incapable of agreeing a coherent policy. The Greeks had a word for it. <\/p>\n
Democracy as implemented by deliberative assemblies of randomly chosen citizens
\nrather than by elected chambers of representatives is very much a minority
\nactivity in the modern world, but it has begun to impress a growing number of
\npolitical scientists with its effectiveness wherever it has been tried (see the
\nwritings of Tin
\nGazivoda, Carole
\nPateman, and Matthew
\nTaylor, cited below). The idea is to go back to something more like the classical
\nGreek model, in which ordinary citizens had a direct input into political
\ndecision-making. The key to dealing with larger populations than in an ancient
\nGreek polis goes by the name of sortition, namely random selection from a pool
\nof eligible voters.<\/p>\n
Below I propose an EEC (Extraordinary Electoral College) with a step-by-step
\nprocedure that is likely to deliver a verdict that would command more
\nwidespread assent than yet another referendum. (For clarity, a number of
\nimplementation details, though important, are omitted from this outline \u2013
\ndiscussed separately in the next section.)<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0 650 people, chosen purely at random, one from each of the electoral
\nregisters of the UK's 650 parliamentary constituencies, are selected to decide
\nupon the issue. (What to do about alternatives for seriously unwell or heavily
\npregnant people or others with good reasons for being unable to attend is
\ndiscussed later on.)<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0 These people are given 14 days' notice to gather for 8 days (Saturday
\nto Sunday) in a conference centre somewhere in the UK, situated north of
\nBedford and south of Berwick upon Tweed. In a time of national crisis it is
\nimpressed on them that it is their duty as citizens to take this task at least
\nas seriously as jury service. (What to do about payment, accommodation
\narrangements, finding replacements for them in their workplaces and so on is
\ndiscussed below.)<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0 When they arrive at the conference centre on Saturday morning they are
\ngiven the withdrawal document to study and a hotline is made available to a
\npanel of civil servants who have been involved in the negotiations to call on
\nfor explanations of difficult passages.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0 They are left at liberty in their accommodation (with regular meals
\nprovided, of course, preferably in a communal dining area) to read and try to
\nunderstand the document until Monday lunchtime. After lunch on Monday they are
\neach given a multi-choice quiz, previously compiled by the civil servants, to
\ntest their comprehension of what they were asked to read and understand. (This test
\nmust later be published, with its expected correct answers.) The 50 people with
\nthe lowest scores on the test take no further part in the process, with
\ntiebreaks to be decided at random, if necessary. (What to do about anonymity
\nand whether they should depart is discussed below.)<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0 The remaining 600 participants are divided into fifty groups of 12,
\nagain entirely randomly, to spend the next four days discussing in their groups
\nthe advantages and disadvantages of the proposed deal. Voters are asked to
\navoid discussion with members of other groups as far as possible. During this
\nperiod mobile phones and other internet devices must be deposited in a secure
\nholding area during the hours of 0900 to 1900 each day, but the hotline to
\ncivil servants should remain open at certain times, e.g. 1200 to 1800 for
\ntechnical queries.<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0 On the second Saturday morning, all voters are asked to retire
\nindividually to their rooms for 24 hours to ponder their choice of all the viable options (in this case let us say
\nthe 3 options: May's deal, No Deal & Remaining in the EU) without any
\ninternet device and without speaking to other voters.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0 On the second Sunday morning these 600 citizens vote by secret ballot
\non the three options available. They will be required to rank them in order
\nfrom most to least preferred. The overall result should be calculated by adding
\n1 to the count of each option ranked top and subtracting 1 from to the count of
\nthe least preferred option, with zero for the middle option, giving each option
\nan overall positive or negative score. (What to be done about spoilt ballots
\nand suchlike is considered below.)<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0 On the Sunday evening the result is announced and the participants
\ndepart to resume their lives.<\/p>\n
Why should this command more respect from the wider population than a vote in
\nthe House of Commons or a full-scale referendum? There are four main reasons.
\nFirstly, the citizens taking part better represent the diverse range of people
\nin this country than do Members of Parliament. Secondly, again unlike MPs, they
\nhave no personal ambitions for prestige or wealth that depend on their
\ndecisions. They are simply citizens who have been asked to take their
\nresponsibilities seriously to the best of their abilities. Thirdly, lobbyists
\nfrom large corporations and other vested interests would not have time to exert
\npressure on the decision makers, who in any case would have nothing to gain or
\nlose from such pressure. Finally, and most importantly, they will have studied
\nand discussed and thought seriously about the choices at stake \u2013 something
\nthat is simply impractical for voters in a full referendum. (It could also be
\narranged more cheaply and quickly than a national referendum, though that
\nadvantage should not be decisive.)<\/p>\n
\nNaturally there are ways that such a procedure can be compromised, so it is
\nimportant to guard against apparently minor elements of the process than can
\nundermine its integrity. Nevertheless, it should not be beyond the wit of homo
\nsapiens to devise a trustworthy procedure. Some suggestions in this regard are
\nlisted below in the same order as the steps outlined above.<\/p>\n
1.\u00a0 Some individuals selected from the electoral registers may have
\nextremely strong reasons for not taking part. They may need urgent medical
\ntreatment; they may be in the late stages of pregnancy, or they may even be
\ndead. Thus each constituency must devise a justifiable randomization process
\nalong with clear rules about what grounds for self-exclusion are acceptable, as
\nwell as a rapid way of selecting an alternative elector if needed. These must
\nbe open to scrutiny so that they can be seen to be unbiased. It is vital to
\nkeep screening to a minimum. The temptation to stratify by age, gender,
\nsocioeconomic or other criteria should be resisted: the nearer to a pure random
\nselection of eligible voters the better.<\/p>\n
2.\u00a0 Participants should be well rewarded (by normal standards, even if not
\nby MPs' standards) for their participation; and their employers, if adversely
\naffected, should be compensated on relatively generous terms. Thus the exercise
\nwill cost public money, although a trivial amount compared to the renovation of
\nthe Houses of Parliament, for example. In addition, details of the venue, such
\nas eating and sleeping arrangements, can make a significant difference, so expense
\nshould not be skimped on this aspect either. Above all, the participants should
\nnot find the event stressful. It may be that centres capable of holding events
\nof such a size should bid for what will be a taxpayer-funded operation. It is
\nimportant that the choice (presumably by civil servants) is transparent, i.e.
\nthat the reasons for the choice of location can be laid open to public
\nscrutiny. The geographic limits stated in the previous section, above, are
\ndesigned to keep the participants away from the delirium of the
\n"Westminster bubble" and arrive at a venue not too far distant from
\nthe centre of the UK population.<\/p>\n
3.\u00a0 The Brexit withdrawal document does not contain a summary. It would be
\nhelpful for ordinary members of the public to have some kind of executive
\nsummary to guide them, but of course the danger then is that the summary will
\nbe used instead of the full document. Perhaps a small team of independent
\nscholars could prepare in advance a synopsis that does not tend to bias towards
\none conclusion or another.<\/p>\n
4.\u00a0 Excluding a small number of people who haven't read or have very
\npoorly understood the central document is controversial. The wider public will
\naccept something of the kind as fair so long as it is restricted only to those
\nwho, for one reason or another, aren't able to make an informed contribution.
\nHowever, the proportion excluded should be small, definitely less than 10
\npercent of the total; and if a tiebreak among equal scores is indicated, it
\nwould probably be better to proceed with slightly more than 600 participants
\nrather than fewer. (Presuming that the official document under scrutiny is in
\nEnglish creates potential disadvantages those for whom English is a second
\nlanguage, but time is not sufficient to provide for speakers of other
\nlanguages.) It is also very important to guard against groupthink. It would be
\nunnatural to expect a group of strangers with a specific topic at the forefront
\nof their minds not to talk about it at all with their fellows, but arrangements
\nshould be in place to emphasize that what is being sought is 600 separate
\ninformed decisions not 600 repetitions of some influential person's opinion.
\nHence fraternization with other participants, other than at meal times, will
\nhave to be discouraged.<\/p>\n
5.\u00a0 Hosting fifty groups in surroundings conducive to free-ranging
\ndiscussion isn't an easy task. Something like a campus with separate meeting
\nrooms will be required. Each group should share thoughts and have the chance to
\nseek clarifications from the civil servants, but too much discussion with other
\ngroups might undermine the independence of each discussion, so should be
\ndiscouraged as far as possible. In western so-called democracies we have become
\naccustomed to, but also disenchanted with, adversarial debate on divisive party
\nlines. The present arrangements are explicitly designed to minimize the risk of
\npolarization into 2 or 3 factions who then devote their energies to disparaging
\neach other rather than seeking solutions to a problem. To encourage freshness,
\nanother option might be to reallocate participants to new groups, again
\nrandomly, half-way through the four-day discussion phase.<\/p>\n
6.\u00a0 Again, the idea of a period of private reflection is to allow debate
\nto lead on to deliberation, thereby reducing the chances of groupthink.<\/p>\n
7.\u00a0 The Alternative Vote (AV) might be thought appropriate here for a
\n3-way choice. The reason for advocating a tallying system, such as that
\ndescribed above, is that AV, in effect, stops as soon as one alternative
\nreaches 50% support. The present method results in an overall order of
\npreference, not just a 'winner'. This gives more information about the decision
\nprocess to politicians and to the wider public. Spoilt ballot papers, as agreed
\nby a panel of trusted returning officers, would be left out of the
\ncomputations.<\/p>\n
8.\u00a0 Questions of anonymity will need to be considered. It would be hard to
\nguarantee all participants anonymity, but it will probably be necessary to
\nimpose strict limitations on whether they should be allowed to give interviews
\nto media organizations and suchlike. Possibly a four or five-year moratorium on
\nrevealing their deliberations should be imposed on participants, long enough
\nfor the information to pass from news (from which political points can be
\nscored) to history (from which lessons can be learned).<\/p>\n
\nEven more important than finding an acceptable route through the tangled
\nthicket of Brexit, successful adoption of such an approach would demonstrate
\ndirect democracy in action as a more effective way of doing politics. This is
\nsomething that will be sorely needed if we are to confront the coming climate
\ncrisis, (which will make Brexit look like a mere hiccup), without turning it
\ninto a catastrophe.<\/p>\n
References<\/p>\n
Gazivoda, T. (2017). Poles
\nare making democracy work again in Gdansk.
\nhttps:\/\/www.resilience.org\/stories\/2017-11-22\/solutions-how-the-poles-are-making-democracy-work-again-in-gdansk\/<\/p>\n
Pateman, C. (2012). Participatory Democracy Revisited. Perspectives on
\nPolitics, 10(1), 7-19. doi:10.1017\/S1537592711004877<\/p>\n
Shrimsley, R. (2018). A second Brexit poll is a bigger risk than leaving.
\nFinancial Times, 8 October 2018.<\/p>\n
Taylor, M. (2018). Is
\nDeliberative Democracy Key to a 21st Century Social Contract? RSA
\nPublications.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
View of Athens from Pnyx, at dusk, 2015. To the left is Lycabettus, to the right Acropolis. Wikicommons\/ C Messier. Some rights reserved. The recent publication of Theresa May's Brexit deal incited a number of zealots in Parliament to throw various toys out of their prams so fast that it is hard to believe they…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-922","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-news"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/922","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=922"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/922\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=922"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=922"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/googmn.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=922"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}