The Voter Questionnaire - a new, technology-enabled and domain-based election model

THE VOTER QUESTIONNAIRE

Purpose:

This document is intended to present a new, technology-enabled and domain-based  election model designed to overcome the limitations of the current monolithic system. 

Features:

·      10 GEDoRs – Government’s Elected Domains of Responsibility

·      Online voting via a Perpetual Voters Platform.

·      Published Vision Statements for each GEDoR by every competing Political Party

·      Up to 10 votes per person – one for each GEDoR

·      Election Results statistics to govern priorities across all GEDoRs

·      All Political Parties have the chance to govern one or more GEDoRs

Example: Ontario Provincial Election Results using the Voter Questionnaire election process.

ELECTION LOGISTICS

Highlights:  

·      The Voter Questionnaire (VQ) replaces the traditional ballot.

·      Voting will take place online using Perpetual Voter Portal [PVP].

·      All voters are eligible to  “prefer” up to 10 Vision Statements – one for each GEDoR.

·      To qualify as an election participant, all Political Parties [PP] must author and publish a Vision Statement [VS] for as many of the 10 Governments’ Elected Domains of Responsibility [GEDoR] in which they wish to compete.

Vision Statement [VS] format:  

·      States the Political Party’s belief and proposed approach regarding the role and extent of government versus private sector involvement within the GEDoR.

·      States the Political Party’s commitment, if elected, to contain its sources of GEDoR funding, choosing between one of 4 options:

a.  100% funded by taxation or public debt.

b.  Over 2/3 funded by taxation or public debt.

c.   Between 1/3 and 2/3 of funding from taxation or public debt.

d.  Zero funding from taxation or public debt.

VS examples for “Health” GEDoR:  Note that the Health GEDoR online screen will present all eligible VS submissions but the PP identities will be  omitted [The “Blind VS”]. Also note that the last 2 options are available to declare no preference. 

                        I.         I prefer to de-monopolize the Health Care system in order to improve efficiencies through competition and private sector investments. No more than 50% funding from public sources. [Ontario PC Party]

                      II.         I prefer to maintain a publicly run Health system and meet rising Health care costs through public funding. [Ontario Liberal Party]

                    III.         I prefer to legalize, commercialize and tax marijuana to increase revenues for our government-run Health Care system [Ontario Freedom Party]

                    IV.         I don't care how the government meets its financial obligations as  long as my Health Care needs are met 100% with government programs [Ontario NDP].

                      V.         I prefer a new carbon tax to address rising public Health Care costs. [Ontario Green Party]

                    VI.         None of the above.

                  VII.         I do not have an opinion on this topic.

Perpetual Voter Portal [PVP]:

Purposes:

·      Provides the technology platform to collect votes during Elections and for Referendums.

·      The use of modern technology for voting purposes enables greater flexibility to  implement and deploy changes to voting procedures. For example, any combination and variation of First Past the Post and/or Proportional Representation election models can be readily accommodated.

·      Remains active for the entire 4 year elected term to enable all citizens to modify their VQ responses at any time but without changing the election results during the 4 year term.  This “citizen feedback”  will be readily available to all interested parties, especially the PPs who manage GEDoRs.  The media will also be able to report on the performance of all Governing GEDoR leaders using realtime statistics.

·      Performance Bonuses  can be easily implemented. For example, any elected GEDoR  Leader may  fail to accrue 4 employment years’ credit  towards a government pension if he/she fails to exceed  the initial winning  percentage of the popular vote for that GEDoR after 4 years in the job.

·      Provides a wealth of data for studying trends in public voting preferences regarding government involvement in their lives.

VS exambles “Taxation & Spending” GEDoR:

                        I.         I prefer to limit spending to the prior year’s tax revenues. Debt-financing can only be used for infrastructure investments [Ontario PC Party]

                      II.         I prefer to restrict spending increases to inflation + population growth. Debt-financing is an acceptable instrument to meet the public’s needs in the areas of Health, Environment and Infrastructure investments. [Ontario Liberal Party]

                    III.         I prefer to tax the highest paid citizens and distribute the proceeds to the “working families” of Ontario in order to comply with our vision of fairness and equality. [Ontario NDP]

                    IV.         I prefer to limit spending growth to inflation + population growth. Carbon taxes and debt-financing are acceptable instruments to finance government efforts to contain the threats of global warming,   protect our natural  environments and to finance Infrastructure investments. [Ontario Green Party]

                      V.         I prefer to systematically reduce government spending and taxation by 5% per year until such time that Provincial Government spending does not exceed 7% of provincial GDP. All privatization efforts and spending priorities will otherwise be determined by the statistics gathered by the Voter Questionnaire election format. [Ontario Libertarian Party]

                    VI.         None of the above.

                  VII.         I do not have an opinion on this topic.

VQ Preparation, Release, Use  and Reporting

A.      A VQ co-ordinating body [possibly the company that provides the PVP services] prepares the Voter Questionnaire [VQ ] for the upcoming election or referendum with participating PPs. Completed 60 days before Election. NOTE: No VS will be identified on the VQ by the PP who created it. 

B.      Election campaigns start 45 days prior to the first day of Election Month. Media is encouraged to “give equal time” to all PPs’ VSs in order to inform and encourage public debate.  The VQ will be made available to all interested persons or organizations.  The goal: to familiarize voters with its contents via media programs, publications and events designed to further voter interest.  

C.       Election Month: Technology-enabled voting will facilitate various modalities and venues for casting one’s VS preferences.   A 30-day election period provides ample time for voters to carefully consider all VS options for all 10 GEDoRs.

D.      10 Votes per voter: Each voter “prefers” one VS from each GEDoR. Voters no longer vote for a PP, but only for their preferred VS. Voters can mark as many or as few of the 10 GEDoRs as they desire, but declare only one “prefer” per GEDoR.  The post-election Official Tally of Results will report all the voting statistics.

WHO WINS?

Political

•              Premier –  is provided by the Party that accumulates the largest number of votes tallied.

•              GEDoR Leaders - supplied by the PP that accumulates the largest number of GEDoR votes tallied.

Democracy

·               Spending and resource allocation priorities will be determined, in priority sequence, by the ranking of GEDoRs where the largest number of votes were tallied.

·               Political Parties will gravitate towards, and attract,  members and political candidates  who possess the expertise to be knowledgeable and credible within specific GEDoRs. This, in turn, will result in the election of GEDoR Leaders who are much more qualified than the assigned Ministers with portfolio in our current system. Over time, all PPs will likely create a widely-recognized and easily-identified “brand”. Such a brand  that will be established and re-enforced [ or damaged]  by the PP’s  accumulated track record of living up to, and protecting, its reputation in the same way that successful corporations do. Shallow and empty political rhetoric will carry less weight when the “citizen feedback”  history for  each political party will be captured and readily available on the Perpetual Voter Platform.

·                 The “Blind VS” is intended to elicit considered and genuine VS preferences based on governing vision [ approach and principles] rather than on blind “party allegiance” or “Beauty Contest” [aka “charisma” voting]. If a voter has done his/her homework concerning each party’s publically-stated VS, then democracy still achieves its goal of obtaining better-informed voters.

·                 The VQ accommodates all voter types – from the “one issue” voter to the democratically “engaged and informed” citizen.  It discourages  “voting for voting’s sake” and encourages citizens to understand and discriminate between published and unique Vision Statements concerning the role of government and the source of funds for spending.

·                 Perpetual Voter Portal [PVP] will eventually become as familiar to voters as Google is today. Information is abundant on the net - most people today “shop online” for goods and service. Why not for political content that is structured around GEDoR and VS within a familiar PVP?

·                 Citizens change in their political interests [or lack thereof] over their lifetime due to their changing circumstances regarding careers, family responsibilities, financial circumstances, social influences, education and age-related needs. By employing the enabling capabilities of  modern and emerging technologies, each and every citizen can main a record of all past personal voting behavior and use this as a way of reviewing information “snapshots” that will reveal insights into their own attitudes and behaviours as a democracy participant.  This feature will likely appeal to a lot of citizens and begin to erode the apathy that many feel regarding their involvement in the political process today.

Democracy should be “alive” every day, not resuscitated and revitalized once every 4 years. 

WHY NOW?

•       Our world is infinitely more complex than it was when our electoral system was originally designed.

•       Technology exists to capture and process voter data in ways never before possible.

•       We live in an age of increasing specialization and its time that our government leaders and organizational structures becomes aligned with this reality.

•       Personal and public Debt levels threaten standards of living in democracies everywhere, and poor government fiscal discipline sets a bad example for us all.

•       Growing public concern about “societal issues” requires a more focused approach that will be better achieved by GEDoR scope management and more appropriate alignment of the expertise and resources needed.

The times are right

to enlist broad public support in order to

craft a more robust democracy….

- one that is shaped and driven by a substantially

better-informed and more engaged

electorate.

Gene Balfour , October 26, 2013

Subject: Obesity and Accountability 

From: Gene Balfour

Date: June 8, 2013 11:21:16 AM EDT

To: Letters (National Post)

Robert Fulford’s article “The elephant in the room” about obesity raised questions in my mind regarding ‘accountability'  for this issue.

In Ontario  the majority of us  have elected a public health care system that pays the financial costs of  obesity-related illnesses. This setup, in effect, rewards those citizens who engage in life-style choices that lead to obesity at the expense of  citizens who apply self-discipline  to avoid such health risks. Notwithstanding the fact that we all experience unique genetic and socio-economic factors that may  advantage  some individuals to maintain healthy weight levels, everyone faces adversity in life - why should those who respond creatively and responsibly to life’s challenges be burdened by those who fail to choose  a similar path?

Fear can be a positive emotion. Many years ago, a friend of mine suffered his first heart attach at age 26. Three years later, after dropping 60 pounds and the smoking habit, he and I completed the Boston Marathon – the first of dozens of marathons he subsequently ran.

How many of our over-weight citizens must experience a life-threatening event like my friend before they make the positive life-style choices that he made? How many will be as lucky as he was to get a second chance? And why are the responsible taxpayers among us forced to pay for the privilege of so many people who play the game of  Life-style Russian Roullete with their lives ?

Gene Balfour

Thornhill

Age 61 - active recreational hockey player, cross-country skiier, Skiker, exerciser, non-smoker. mesomorph

Canad's for of "democracy' is a Socialist Streamroller

Canada’s current form of democracy is a Socialist Streamroller flattening freedom and prosperity as it lumbers on in time. At its helm are a revolving door of madmen who believe that they can legislate prosperity for all. These madmen are hired by the majority cadre of citizens who value “care-giving at any cost” and wear this misguided sentiment as a public badge of honour that trumps anyone who values “personal self-reliance whenever possible”. 

Atlas Shrugged when the true prosperity-builders faced an unstoppable Socialist Streamroller in Ayn Rand’s masterpiece. Let’s hope that this remains just fiction.

Democracy leads to fascism

I believe that modern democracies lead inevitably towards fascism [defined as collusion between "Big Government" and "Big Corporate" to do each others' bidding.] In the 1930s, Mussolini set up Italy's economy along these lines. Today, the USA has fascist relations with Wall Street, the home mortgage sector, the military industrial complex, the US auto manufacturers, and many others.

The elements of democracy that drive a country to fascism include:
- Citizens at the bottom of the socio-economic pyramid ['the "have-nots" ] always vote for more government freebies which are paid for by those citizens in the higher portion of the socio-economic pyramid ['the "haves" ]. This enables politicians to "buy votes" with promises of more freebies for the much more populous "have-nots".
- Over time, as socialist politicians [those who promise and deliver government freebies] continue to win power over political parties that promise to deliver more frugal governments, the size of the public sector grows unchecked in order to deliver on socialist promises and to placate special interest groups [such as public sector unions] that have supported the socialist cause politically.
- Currently, some 40+% of voting age citizens either work for a government enterprise or depend on government programs for aid. These voters will never vote for smaller government or government austerity programs/constraint because it is a vote against their self-interest. This means that any party that will campaign for "less government, lower taxes and fewer regulations" will never succeed because 40+% of the voter base is already committed to a Big and Bigger Government political ideology. Have you every seen the Liberals, NDP, Green or Conservative party ever openly campaign for Smaller Government and win? Of course, the media never pays attention to the Libertarian Party which is the only one on any election ballot that exists solely to achieve "less government, lower taxes and fewer regulations" .
- The above evolving political landscape is joined by another force that is just as powerful - either overt or covert State and Corporate collusion. The overt type are the state-owned or state-controlled/subsidized enterprises that must do what their political masters dictate. Examples, the Beer Store, LCBO, entire energy sector in Ontario, the banks [controlled by government monetary policy issued by the Bank of Canada], etc. The covert type are the corporations that appear independent, but whose political lobbyists have succeeded in extracting advantages in their markets. Examples: any corporation that receives government subsidies or regulatory advantages that provide the company with a competitive edge or barriers to entry for smaller competitors: - think the Telecommunications industry in Canada.
- When the above forces add up, it is clear that the form of socio-economic fascism that exists today in the USA and most of the Western world, is an ongoing evolutional force that will favor more and more state control and fascism. Where does it end ? Can it be stopped? 

The economic defaults of nation-states such as New Zealand in 1985 are the most common way that this trend stops, but why wait for such a national crisis such as the one in Greece to curb this trend? It could be stopped only if a hard cap on government spending AND a return to a "hard currency" were implemented. Stop printing money [ its counterfeit, dontcha know, unless the government does it] and allow government spending ONLY from collected revenues [ debt-financing must stop].

Full disclosure time …. 

Gene Balfour
Member of the Ontario Libertarian Party.
Thornhill Candidate in the last provincial election

I personally do not oppose taxes.

I personally do not oppose taxes. 

What I oppose is excessive taxation and the resulting excessive concentrations of power that have accumulated with the steady growth of the state over my lifetime and beyond.  

I would gladly fund [pay taxes, if necessary] a minarchist government that possesses a mandate in which I believe. The fact that all Western governments have evolved their mandates greatly beyond the scope of government operations of 100 years ago is of great concern to me and should be of great concern to all citizens who value individual freedom AS WELL AS state protection of property ownership [ by "property", I mean in the broadest sense of the word = includes your body, mind and material belongings] 

A wise friend once told me that: "The currency of government is votes". In addition, the lubrication of the vote-getting machinery is money. All successful politicians within the major parties know these and play the  political game by following this formula.

Libertarians are at a huge electoral disadvantage as compared to the established major parties because we are not prepared to "buy votes" by lubricating large, politically-organized and ideologically-aligned  "special interest" factions of the voting populations [such as unions]. This kind of lubricating behaviour goes against everything that Libertarians believe…. it makes my DNA crawl with disgust.

A minarchist government, to me at least, would support the property rights of every citizen EQUALLY regardless of their affiliations or beliefs. Would I expect taxation to fund these operations? Yes, If no better way were available.  Would I expect the delivery of  these services to come from private-sector, "for-profit" business operators? Yes, whenever possible and supported by a sound business case. 

I am a member and supporter of the OLP because I am operating on the belief that all other members and supporters share this vision with me. I am, and have always been, a successful businessman who has profound faith in unfettered free-market capitalism.  I have seen it work first-hand since I held my first job in 1966 as a factory worker during a summer job. Do abuses occur in free-market, capitalistic enterprises? Undoubtedly….  but no worse than those that come at the hands of our political leaders who have led us inexorably towards inefficient, often corrupt, self-serving, monopolistic and power-abusing statism with its endlessly sprawling public institutions.

Wherever and whenever power amasses within large bodies of people and around issues involving access to huge amounts on money, there is a tendency for power-hungry, influential and corrupt citizens to make an appearance. The 'checks and balances' to curb corruption are generally very effective in unfettered, capitalist free-market enterprises  where consumers freely vote for the success or failure of the business with their purchasing behaviours. On the other hand, corruption is much more likely in public institutions where the 'checks and balances' to curb corruption are comparatively non-existent. Why? …  because nearly all government funding comes from coercive sources [taxation] and individual citizens' votes carry no political weight when compared to the large, politically-organized and ideologically-aligned  "special interest" factions of the voting populations [ such as unions].

This is why I favour decentralized political structures as much as possible. Within these, each citizen will have a better chance of knowing the people and the issues that are central to their community. The amount of money involved in these decentralized governing organizations will be limited to that which can be raised within each community and consequently, will be comparably much less than the budgets of our existing, huge centralized governments where millions of taxpayers dollars are often thrown about in political discussions with little more concern than if they were rounding errors on a spreadsheet.

Read the last chapter of Bill Gairdner's " The Trouble with Canada" to get a glimpse of a decentralized political model that is used in Switzerland. I would love to see the OLP rally around this vision of democracy. :-)