Evolve the Romanian Electoral System, here is how
There has been a lot of material going around these days about how you have to vote. If you don’t actually vote you still influence the result of the elections, favouring the winner. And if you do vote and decided to null your vote, you’re not having a better impact, either. This inspired me to consider a few ways to fix this mess.
The more realistic approach
So, continuing on the ideas above: if I don’t believe in any of the parties on the list I am forced to vote against candidates. Choose the “lesser evil”, as it were. Well, if you’re going to force people to vote, why not do it properly. The first idea I like is: mandatory vote.
But for this idea to become really powerful I believe we need some sprinkles added on top. We need the default option of voting with no-one on the list. As in really NOT voiding your vote, NOT throwing it away, but casting it for the idea that no-one on this entire list is suited to represent you as a citizen. The option of saying: you politician folk really need to be doing better than this.
The act of not voting is currently too confusing. Do you not care about your democratic right!? Or perhaps you do care but use your absence as a form of protest!? These are two very different things. One says that you deserve whatever you get and you need to shut up about it. The other calls for new options, stirs the pot for new political ideas to surface, lets the people up-stairs know that they need to improve. Not making the difference between these two opinion groups keeps us in a state of murky-judgemental conversation that only pulls us backward.
And the epic one
Humor me. I spent the entirety of an hour thinking about this.
Article I: First of all, you vote as an individual, within a closed group representing whichever form of Romanian legal enterprise you are a part of. I mean businesses, NGOs, Foundations, Schools and Universities, etc. Then, as a result of this internal vote, the respective organisation casts one single vote. This vote has a value that is proportional to the number of people who the organisation represents.
Article II: The vote that these enterprises cast is public. The votes that the individuals cast is secret.
Article III: People that are socially assisted and therefore not part of any of these organisations, do not get to vote. So, for example, a retired individual that works as a volunteer in an NGO gets to vote. A retired individual working on a wine spritzer, can only influence others.
This gives me five things I like
- Genuine political debate within groups of people who should actually care for one another and their common interest. People that know each other enough to be civil, understand and influence one-another. People that directly understand that their democratic victory should represent a victory for everyone, not just the “lucky” 51%.
- A vote influenced by the entities that get directly impacted by the outcome. Politics that are first hand driven by economical and social reasoning.
- A growth in the responsibility that businesses have for their people and local community. I’m not really hoping to ever see a government that is driven to really represent, protect and empower their people. But I know for sure that there are businesses doing it very well already.
- DATA! Transparency without violation of individual rights. I really need to see into these votes. Who are Schools and Universities voting for? Who are hospitals voting for? Is it for the people who actually do something to help them or is petty political interest driving votes? Cause if you vote for stagnation, don’t come complaining about it.
- A solution to the reality where the elderly decide the future. Now, you may be thinking that I am marginalising this category of people that may very well have a great deal of life experience. Well, I’m actually not. All I’m doing is putting emphasis on the family relationships. If grandpa can convince his working son that he should vote his way then it’s perfect. If they don’t have the means to talk and decide on what is best for the family (perhaps because their family is dysfunctional like that) – that’s when I’m glad grandpa does not vote. He had a great deal to do with how his family works now.
I conclusion, I’d really love to see people choosing their work-place based also on the respective organisation’s approach to the electoral exercise. I’d love to see people making purchasing decisions, choosing brands they buy based on their political affinities. That’s real meaning, right there.
- the risk of fraud is nulled
- we’d be saving a lot of money on setting up the election process
You want politics done right? Embrace it all the way!
I greatly appreciate feedback on what I write. The comments box below helps with that just right.
Close people (that, sadly, I get to see less and less these days) find the email subscription box in the upper right of the page really useful.
So, what do you think about it!?