On alternative forms of representative government:Part 2: A more enduring democracy

So the question remains, how can we create a form of government which maximizes freedom for all, minimizes abuse and corruption, while still remaining accountable to the people, and resistant to eventual decay? I maintain that this is best accomplished with a minarchist democratic republic.

There is a common perception that giving money and power to gov't is good, because it allows the gov't to accomplish more. The problem is, abuse and corruption are attracted to money and power like flies to rotting meat. The very nature of gov't makes this an inevitability. Eventually, governments will take (more of) your earnings, your property, your labor, your liberties. The power to do good is also the power to do evil, and the power to do great good is a sure temptation (and frequent excuse) to do great harm. It is simply unreasonable to expect any politician, never mind politicians as a whole, to always act altruistically.

One obvious, yet often disregarded, means of minimizing the bad aspects of gov't, is to minimize its money and power. This means limiting its size, scope, ability to tax, and ability to legislate. In addition to directly scaling down the amount of bad taxes and legislation, by making it more difficult to tax and legislate it becomes more probable that those bills that do survive to become law, will likely be of a better quality. Furthermore, by limiting the scope and power of gov't, it becomes more limited in the amount of corruption and abuse it can perform, as well as becoming less appealing a target for influence by those outside it seeking those "special favors" that lead to pork and corruption.

Thomas Jefferson got it right when he proclaimed that the "government which governs best, governs least." Most functions which society deems essential are much better handled in the private sector, and having a minimalist gov't (a "minarchy") helps ensure that gov't performs only those services it is absolutely needed for, as opposed to services which some people would merely like for gov't to perform.

A minarchist gov't will take longer to become bloated, but we still need more protections to prevent it from engaging in things it has no business doing. One method is to give it a Constitution which clearly delineates its powers and duties, and even more importantly, spells out those things which a gov't is forbidden to do. The American Constitution was a good starting point for this concept, though it has exploitable loopholes and was vague enough that our gov't now safely (for it, not for us) ignores most of it. For an idea of what a more solid Constitution might look like, you can look at one of my efforts of a few years ago, as well as the Constitution and Laws of the now-defunct Oceania Project.

So far, what I've described is a constitutional minarchy, or a minarchist republic. But this leaves out how those in gov't got there; it could be a monarchy (heh heh--a minarchy monarchy!), dictatorship (though that tends to be at strong odds with minarchism), oligarchy, democracy, etc. I would argue that the best of these, ensuring the most accountability with all other factors being equal, is a democracy.

But what kind of democracy? There are many types, degrees, and styles. Here in the US, we have a representative democracy with each representative representing a given geographic area, which may be a state (senators), county (county board), town (mayor), district (congressional representative), precinct (councilman), etc. In many cases when an area has several representatives, that area is divided up into smaller areas which are represented by each member of the governing body. In theory, this is supposed to be done according to population, so that each representative represents roughly an equal number of people. In practice however, incumbents re-draw boundaries to give them the populations they would prefer to represent, such as mostly blacks or mostly rich people. This is referred to as gerrymandering. It is essentially reverse-democracy: the politicians are, in a very real sense, choosing their voters for their own advantage. Thus, voters' votes count for even less, as the outcome is already largely decided.

So why not simply remove the geographic component of representation? This was one of Professor de La Paz's big ideas presented in Heinlein's "Moon is a Harsh Mistress" novel. (You know, the one this site is built upon? :-) Simply have each representative be a representative of X number of people, or alternatively X% of the population. Anyone in the area of governance can vote for any person. There is no ballot qualification process; any person able to get X number of votes gets a seat in the legislature. If a candidate can get 2X number of votes, he gets 2 votes in the legislature. Anyone could run, meaning that rather than just having candidates of some parties on the ballot, you could also have people who represent a particular trade, or social cause. These would be "single-profession" or "single-issue" candidates. Many people might prefer such candidates, as currently with the party system you get candidates who try to be all things to all people. Removing the geographic constraint on representation means a candidate can focus his efforts on a particular group of people who can be more assured that he will be their best choice.

Removing geography from the democratic equation would also have a benefit in eliminating the need for gerrymandering. Now, people could choose the person they felt best represents them, without the worry that they might be part of the small minority in a gerrymandered district whose vote essentially counts for naught. Politicians should like it too, as the effect for them is much like gerrymandered districting, except that it is still the voters choosing the politicians rather than vice versa.

An example of how this might play out was briefly sketched in MiaHM. On Luna, anyone getting 4,000 signatures on a petition could have a seat in the governing body. 8,000 signatures, and he'd get two votes, and so on. Presumably these signatures would need to be verifiable to prevent double-voting. Then you could have a representative body where one person represents, say, I.T. professionals, another represents some racial minority group, another some religious denomination, another represents a pro-gun group, another represents pro-trade business owners, another environmentalists, etc. Choose the issue that's most important to you, then either find a candidate who fits the bill, or get together with like-minded individuals and pick one from within your ranks. Your candidate is not limited by geographic area or party affiliation.

In some areas we have something much like this already, where people elect candidates "at large." This is still bogged down by a discriminatory ballot qualification process though, and often the number of people being elected to the at-large body are not numerous enough to give voters all that diverse a selection. Voters are still limited to voting for candidates based on political parties and the broad, nebulous ideologies they encompass. Still, I believe at-large voting to be an improvement over geographic-based systems that are prone to gerrymandering.

So thus far I've described several elements for making a gov't more accountable and representative: minarchism, a limiting Constitution, and a particular form of democracy that is more accurate and less prone to corruption. Next, I'll describe ways to make gov't safer, and more resistant to decay.