A Monograph

Democratic Decisions

Paul Isaacs

April 2013

Introduction

In a autocratic system decisions are made by one person. In contrast, a democratic system will involve many people in making a decision. An autocratic system does not require a means of decision making. A democratic system, on the other hand, can not exist without a mechanism to allow many people to make a decision. The most common form of decision making in a democratic system is by voting.

It is the assertion of this position paper that the most common form voting, an either/or, yea/nea vote that has only two possible outcomes, is not sufficient to serve a democracy.

Democratic Decision Making

A decision to which 50%-1 of voters are opposed can not be considered to be truly democratic. Therefore, voting methods that permit such outcomes can not, themselves, be considered to be truly democratic.

In a democracy individuals can freely exercise their individual preferences. To be successful, a democracy needs to ensure that a significant majority of its citizens feel that their  preferences have been given due consideration and accommodated. A democracy that allows its citizens to become alienated and detached is a democracy that is likely to fail.

Triple Outcome Votes

A voting system that only permits yes/no outcomes has no means to provide due consideration and accommodation. The result of the vote is always terminal. No reconciliation is possible. Clearly such an outcome is not in the spirit of democracy.

A voting system that permits three outcomes is much more compatible with democracy. In such a system a vote would either carry or lose or, additionally, be inconclusive. An inconclusive outcome would allow for further consideration and accommodation to be made before the vote was attempted again. The third outcome would provide the space for democracy to function.

This monograph suggests that equal weight be given to all outcomes. Therefore, a vote would pass with a 2/3rds majority, lose with a 1/3 minority and otherwise be inconclusive.

Deadlock

A yes/no vote can not deadlock. However, a triple outcome vote can deadlock if intransigence or partisan politics dominates and the vote outcome is always inconclusive. In this case it must be concluded that democracy has failed. The deadlock is then resolved by moving the vote to a more autocratic body for consideration.

As an example, in Canada, a deadlock in the House of Commons could result in the question being transferred to the Senate. A deadlock in the Senate could result in the Governor General deciding the question.

With each democratic failure, the question would be transferred to a less democratic institution until, in the extreme, the question would be decided autocratically.

A deadlock could not be resolved by changing to a yes/no vote in the same institution. The consequence of changing to a yes/no vote would be to permit the institution to continually default to a yes/no vote.

Benefits

Currently in Canada extreme partisanship has combined with a majority government to virtually eliminate democratic due consideration and accommodation from the House of Commons.

A change to triple outcome voting would force any government short of a 2/3rds majority to seek democratic reconciliation with members of the opposition.

Unlike the current circumstances, a government would be reluctant to introduce legislation without some prior consultation with the opposition. Any attempt to introduce an omnibus bill would almost certainly fail.

The currently moribund parliamentary committees would become the most logical venue for a government to begin the process of securing the necessary multi-party support for legislation.

A failure of government legislation in the House of Commons would see legislation pass out of the government's control and on to possible defeat or uncertain amendment in the Senate or by the Governor General.

The ability of a government to act autocratically would be severely constrained. The principles of democracy would, of necessity, prevail.

Conclusion

Due consideration, accommodation and reconciliation are singular qualities of a democracy. The preemptive nature of yes/no binary voting is fundamentally at odds with the principles of democracy. Triple outcome voting which allows for an inconclusive outcome supports the due consideration, accommodation and reconciliation that are the essence of democracy.