Democracy Gone Astray

Democracy, being a human construct, needs to be thought of as directionality rather than an object. As such, to understand it requires not so much a description of existing structures and/or other related phenomena but a declaration of intentionality.
This blog aims at creating labeled lists of published infringements of such intentionality, of points in time where democracy strays from its intended directionality. In addition to outright infringements, this blog also collects important contemporary information and/or discussions that impact our socio-political landscape.

All the posts here were published in the electronic media – main-stream as well as fringe, and maintain links to the original texts.

[NOTE: Due to changes I haven't caught on time in the blogging software, all of the 'Original Article' links were nullified between September 11, 2012 and December 11, 2012. My apologies.]

Thursday, October 06, 2011

Should We Think Twice About Online Voting?

Prioritizing convenience over genuine citizen engagement is the wrong strategy.


Seduced by technology's ability to facilitate the mundane tasks of daily life, many Canadians are finding the act of going out and voting too disruptive. With the exception of a slight uptick of around three per cent in the most recent federal election, voter turnout continues to decline.

What can be done to compel more people to take part in this fundamental function of a healthy democracy? Elections Canada is now exploring the possibility of “e-services” such as internet voting. Yet, as we wade into considerations of altering our voting practices, we must ask ourselves an important question: In addressing the participatory deficit plaguing our democracy, should our primary focus be on making voting more convenient?



A growing number of Canadians are turning away from the political process. How can they be brought back into the fold? Two experts weigh in here.



In its report on the 41st general election, Elections Canada is careful to identify its core mandate: to ensure that Canadians can exercise their democratic right to vote or to run as a candidate. Note that its mandate is not to increase voter turnout. Nevertheless, the federal agency wants to meet Canadians’ expectations of convenience by exploring new options such as internet voting, and it is seeking approval to experiment with this method in a 2013 by-election.

As Marc Mayrand, Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, states in the report:

Today, government services are expected to be more convenient. Electors and candidates alike look for services that are available wherever they happen to be, when they want the services and on their own terms. Meeting their expectations requires new approaches.

This consumer-oriented mentality has its merits. However, taking responsibility for enacting broader societal change does not. As Mayrand pessimistically adds, "Apathy is a societal issue largely beyond Elections Canada’s control."

While Elections Canada’s work to improve the mechanics of the electoral system is important, it is the larger problem of voter apathy that needs to be addressed. When it comes to tackling apathy, new technologies that facilitate convenience are no panacea.

Internet voting would maximize convenience while minimizing two important components of voting: its social nature (seeing fellow citizens at the polls), and the necessity of taking substantial action (i.e. the physical act of travelling to the polling station or mailing in a ballot).

What might political theorist Hannah Arendt say about online voting? Arendt discussed human action in the political context. She believed that freedom could only be continuously preserved by human beings witnessing one another engaged in speech and action. For Arendt, this engagement constituted and preserved the "public realm." Put in contemporary terms, when men and women visit the polling booths and engage in the direct and physical act of voting, they socialize with one another. It is this social interaction (a shared experience) that allows for, and maintains, the forums in which people can express their ideas and preserve their freedoms. In contrast, Arendt would likely view internet voting – an isolated, solitary event – as a perilous beginning of the erosion of the public realm, and, thus, as a threat to our freedom. Perhaps this is hyperbolic in a modern democracy such as Canada, but it is a reminder that foundational acts such as voting cannot be taken lightly.



Find out how Canada can entice young voters to get politically active here.



As technology reshapes our lives and communities, we start to prioritize convenience above all other values. This sets a dangerous precedent, emphasizing a culture of individualism and encouraging us to trivialize the act of voting by moving it to an easy-access, “no-effort-required” web platform.

From voting's earliest days, the physical act of showing up and casting a ballot has symbolized one's presence and membership in a democratic society. Having the freedom to choose someone to represent you is something that should be taken seriously, and that must be commensurate in its demands on the individual. The act of leaving home and taking time to vote shows an individual's investment and participation in the collective society. Internet voting, characterized by a solitary and minimally demanding action, does not put this kind of demand on the individual.

As officials consider fundamentally changing our electoral system, Canadians need to think critically about the merits of making changes that do not get at the core of what is lacking. For the past several years, as fractious minority governments have prevailed in Canada’s federal landscape, Canadians have lamented the lack of respect, as well as the dearth of substantial policy discussion, among the federal politicians who represent us. The way to effect change in this regard is to increase our turnout at the polls – not by making voting more convenient, but by encouraging citizens to invest time, thought, and effort in the issues that matter to our country. By doing this, we can set a standard and send a message to politicians that we are engaged in the issues, and that we demand better.

Origin
Source: the Mark 

No comments:

Post a Comment