Late last year Democracy for Dinner launched an occasional general interest Substack channel to promote new ideas about strengthening democracy.

Called The Democracy Dialogue the intent is to explore ideas, hear and seek different perspectives and ultimately enhance the debate about what is working in democracy, and how it can be better.

Using the long form, direct engagement format of Substack, the channel complements our local work in Castlemaine, Australia. It allows us to build networks and foster conversations with a wider group of interested academics, activists, journalists and others across the planet.

And best of all, it is open to anyone to be a part of.

If this sound like you, check out our Substack, read the posts and subscribe at:

https://open.substack.com/pub/democracy4dinner

We are excited to bring Tim Hollo to Castlemaine on Wednesday 17 May 2023 for a discussion and launch of his book Living Democracy: An ecological manifesto for the end of the world as we know it.

What if the solutions to our ecological, social and political crises could all be found in the same approach? What if it was possible for us to not just survive, but thrive?

In Living Democracy, activist and Green Institute Executive Director Tim Hollo offers bold ideas and a positive vision. It’s the end of the world as we know it, but it doesn’t have to be the end of the world. In fact, around the globe, people and communities are beginning an exciting new journey.

Join Tim in conversation with Alex Kelly and Jim Buckell.

Book at Living Democracy Castlemaine on Eventbrite.

The event is free, but donations towards travel costs are welcome and can be made at: https://www.greeninstitute.org.au/donate/.

Copies of Tim’s book “Living Democracy” will be available for purchase and signing.

Below is a full, unedited transcript of the ‘conversation’ we recently had with ChatGPT-3, an artificial intelligence ‘chat bot’ developed by OpenAI. Try yourself here: https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/.

Democracy for Dinner: What are the key challenges facing democracy in Australia?

ChatGPT-3: There are several key challenges facing democracy in Australia, some of which are similar to those faced by other democracies around the world. These challenges include:

1. Ensuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process, including through access to information and the ability to vote.
2. Protecting the rights of minority groups and ensuring that their voices are heard and respected in the democratic process.
3. Managing the influence of money in politics and ensuring that the political process is not unduly influenced by wealthy individuals or special interest groups.
4. Addressing issues of political polarization and ensuring that political parties and elected officials are able to work together to find solutions to important issues facing the country.
5. Dealing with the impact of social media and other forms of technology on the democratic process, including the spread of misinformation and the potential for foreign interference in elections.

D4D: Do you consider lack of trust in institutions to be a problem also?

ChatGPT-3: Yes, lack of trust in institutions can be a problem for democracy. When citizens do not trust their government or other institutions, they may be less likely to participate in the democratic process or to support decisions made by those institutions. This can lead to a lack of legitimacy for democratic institutions and may make it more difficult for them to effectively govern. In turn, this can lead to further mistrust and a downward spiral of declining participation and effectiveness.

D4D: You mentioned “Ensuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process” What do you consider “…

ChatGPT-3: …ensuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process” to mean? This means ensuring that all citizens have access to information and the ability to vote, regardless of their socioeconomic status, race, gender, or other factors. It also means providing education and other resources to help individuals understand the democratic process and make informed decisions about their participation. Additionally, it means protecting the rights of minority groups and ensuring that their voices are heard and respected in the democratic process.

D4D: What about equal opportunity to stand for elected office? To be a representative?

ChatGPT-3: Ensuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to stand for elected office and to be a representative is also an important part of ensuring that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process. This means ensuring that there are no barriers to individuals seeking elected office, such as financial barriers or discrimination based on factors such as race or gender. It also means promoting diversity in elected officials and ensuring that the political process is representative of the diverse population of the country.

D4D: How can this be achieved?

ChatGPT-3: There are several ways that ensuring equal opportunity to stand for elected office and to be a representative can be achieved. These include:

1. Providing financial support for individuals seeking elected office, such as through public financing of campaigns or other forms of support.
2. Implementing policies and initiatives to promote diversity in political representation, such as affirmative action programs or quotas for certain underrepresented groups.
3. Implementing regulations and laws to prevent discrimination in the political process, such as by banning campaign donations from certain groups or individuals.
4. Providing education and resources to help individuals understand the political process and the requirements for standing for office, such as through voter education programs or candidate training programs.
5. Encouraging greater civic engagement and participation in the political process, such as through voter outreach and engagement efforts.

D4D: Are there other barriers to equality of opportunity to stand for elected office?

ChatGPT-3: Yes, there can be other barriers to equality of opportunity to stand for elected office, beyond just financial barriers or discrimination. For example, individuals from certain backgrounds may face social or cultural barriers that prevent them from seeking elected office, such as a lack of support from their communities or a lack of role models in political positions. Additionally, some individuals may face personal barriers, such as a lack of confidence or a lack of knowledge about the political process, that prevent them from seeking elected office. These barriers can be difficult to overcome and may require targeted efforts to address.

D4D: What would you suggest?

ChatGPT-3: To address these barriers to equality of opportunity to stand for elected office, I would suggest several actions. These include:

1. Providing targeted support and resources to individuals from underrepresented backgrounds who are interested in seeking elected office, such as through mentorship programs or candidate training programs.
2. Engaging with communities and organizations that represent underrepresented groups to promote greater participation in the political process and encourage individuals to seek elected office.
3. Implementing policies and initiatives to support individuals from underrepresented backgrounds who are seeking elected office, such as through public financing of campaigns or other forms of support.
4. Providing education and resources to help individuals overcome personal barriers to seeking elected office, such as through voter education programs or candidate training programs.
5. Engaging with elected officials and other leaders to raise awareness of the importance of diversity in political representation and to encourage them to support efforts to promote greater equality of opportunity in the political process.

D4D: Are there alternatives to electoral representation that can be just as democratic and ensure citizens voice in government?

ChatGPT-3: Yes, there are alternatives to electoral representation that can be just as democratic and ensure citizens’ voices in government. Some examples of these alternatives include:

1. Direct democracy, in which citizens have the ability to directly participate in decision-making through mechanisms such as referendums or initiatives.
2. Deliberative democracy, in which citizens are brought together in structured, inclusive, and deliberative processes to discuss and make decisions on important issues.
3. Participatory budgeting, in which citizens have a direct role in deciding how public funds are allocated in their communities.
4. Civic engagement and participation initiatives, such as community forums, town halls, and other mechanisms that allow citizens to have a voice in government decision-making.

These alternatives to electoral representation can provide citizens with more direct and meaningful ways to participate in the democratic process and can help ensure that their voices are heard and respected in government decision-making.

D4D: Would these approaches help with the other challenges to democracy you mentioned?

ChatGPT-3: Yes, these alternative approaches to representation can help address some of the other challenges to democracy that were mentioned. For example:

1. Direct democracy and deliberative democracy can help ensure that all citizens have an equal opportunity to participate in the democratic process, as they provide mechanisms for citizens to directly engage in decision-making.
2. Participatory budgeting can help reduce the influence of money in politics by giving citizens a direct role in deciding how public funds are allocated, rather than leaving it up to elected officials who may be influenced by special interests.
3. Civic engagement and participation initiatives can help address issues of political polarization by providing a forum for constructive dialogue and collaboration between individuals from different political perspectives.

Overall, these alternative approaches to representation can help promote greater inclusion, participation, and accountability in the democratic process, which can help address some of the key challenges facing democracy.

D4D: Why do you think we aren’t already doing them?

ChatGPT-3: There are several reasons why these alternative approaches to representation are not more widely used in democracies like Australia. Some possible reasons include:

1. These approaches can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, and may require significant investment in order to be implemented effectively.
2. These approaches may be seen as challenging to existing political power structures, and may be resisted by elected officials or other stakeholders who are concerned about losing control or influence.
3. These approaches may be seen as complex or difficult to understand by some members of the public, and may require significant education and engagement efforts in order to be successful.
4. These approaches may not always produce clear or straightforward decisions, and may require careful consideration and deliberation in order to arrive at the best outcomes.

Overall, while these alternative approaches to representation can be effective in promoting greater participation and accountability in the democratic process, they also come with challenges and may require significant effort and investment to implement successfully.

D4D: What would you do to embed these approaches more fully in our government and

ChatGPT-3: To embed these alternative approaches to representation more fully in our government and democratic process, I would suggest several actions. These include:

1. Investing in the development and implementation of these approaches, including providing the necessary resources and support to ensure that they are successful.
2. Engaging with elected officials and other stakeholders to build support and understanding for these approaches, and to address any concerns or challenges that may arise.
3. Providing education and resources to the public to help them understand and participate in these approaches, including through voter education programs and other outreach efforts.
4. Collaborating with other democracies and experts who have experience with these approaches, in order to learn from their successes and challenges and to develop best practices for their implementation.
5. Regularly evaluating and adapting these approaches to ensure that they are effective and responsive to the needs of citizens and the broader democratic process.

What if a trip to a polling booth was not the only chance we got to exercise democracy?

Election day is pretty much what every Australian equates with democracy, but it hasn’t always been the case. As David Van Reybrouk argues in his excellent book Against Elections (full review in an upcoming newsletter!), democracy was never intended to be purely ‘representative’, and not only ‘electoral’ either…

There are many examples of other democratic systems already in use around the world. We will explore these further in future posts and newsletters, but here is a taster of two of the most impactful:

Direct democracy – essentially, voting on issues, rather than representatives (or, worse, parties). We have direct democracy in Australia (though rarely) via referenda. In other countries this is much more common.

• In Switzerland, for example, representative democracy is coupled with a citizens initiative system. Any citizen of voting age can proposed constitutional amendments (‘popular initiative’) or seek a referendum on a law passed at any level of government (‘optional referendum’). (Switzerland also has a more sophisticated ‘bottom up’ federalism model, which has local cantons collecting taxes).
• Even the United States, many states have ‘ballot initiatives’ at any given election. At the recent US mid-terms, for example, there were a plethora of initiatives asking questions on abortion, climate action, voting rights and legalising marijuana. Most of these are legally binding (or highly influential) on State legislatures.

Direct democracy can be great, where the situation is relatively simple, or where the issue is significant in the public mind and people have had access to good information to make up their minds. But it just can’t work for everything.

The problem with direct democracy is that it can be highly susceptible to reactionary, surface level responses, and is easily manipulated by misinformation (if you believe the hype, something like a direct democracy model is part of Elon Musk’s long-term plan for Twitter – which should be fun to watch).

Which brings us to…

Deliberative democracy – deliberative approaches allow a small number of people, often chosen to be representative of the population, to consider a complex issue, hear from experts and reach a view through considered dialogue.

A well-functioning parliament ought to be a deliberative mechanism, but the proliferation of political parties and partisan voting has all but extinguished this.

More effective examples involve citizens assemblies or citizen’s panels, chosen at random (but can be weighted for demographic characteristics for example). There is really strong evidence that given an opportunity to deliberate, people make better choices.

Successful examples are big and small: in Victoria some water authorities are using citizen panels to set prices, local governments are required to use deliberative approaches by the 2020 Local Government Act. Iceland held a citizen panel for its constitutional reforms, Ireland did the same for the constitutional reforms that enshrined a right to an abortion.

Expect to hear much more on this in future newsletters.

Or: Lessons for democracy?

With so much going on in the US, it is hard to keep track. Following last week’s mid-term elections the Democrats have kept the Senate. Republicans are likely to win the House of Representatives. Why should we care? We take a look at some things that have caught our eye, and possible lessons for Australia…

1. Did people vote for democracy?

As has been well reported, many candidates who campaigned to overturn the 2020 US presidential election lost. (The poor showing of Trump-backed candidates even inspired this cover from the usually Trump-sympathetic New York Post). 

Take for example the contrasting fortunes of two Republican candidates for Governor: Doug Mastriano lost his campaign in Pennsylvania after claiming the 2020 election was stolen; while Brian Kemp in Georgia (who famously supported his Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger when he pushed back on Trump’s bid to ‘find more votes’) safely won re-election. Similar results for Tim Michels in Wisconsin, as well as Lee Zeldin in the Senate in New York and Kari Lake in Arizona (who described 2020 election as a “laughing-stock”).

Democracy seemed to matter the most in decisive races (along with voters rejecting candidates who took a particularly hard-line on abortion following the Dobbs decision – see an excellent analysis on this New York Times podcast).

Positive signs that where it mattered, voters turned out (or turned their vote) to support democracy. For more see this fantastic graphic and article by the New York Times.

However, as this summary by FiveThirtyEight, points out that, there is a little more to the story: 

Of the 199 Republican candidates for the House, Senate, governor, secretary of state, and attorney general who deny the legitimacy of the 2020 election, so far 134 are projected to win their races.

This is 67% of the election deniers that stood for these positions. That remains concerning, and a challenge for the future Congress.

Lesson for Australia? Well, as I say to my kids: it is just as important to be a good loser as a good winner (see also my thanks to Scomo for conceding in May 2022 here).

2. State level results, or: be thankful for independent electoral commissions

While the Senate and House of Reps get the most attention in the US, it is the State level results that mean the most for the future of American democracy.

In the US the electoral laws are set by the State legislatures, not by an independent body. In Australia we have the Australian Electoral Commission and various state electoral commissions. When one party takes control of all three branches in any US State (State House, State Senate and Governor) there is almost nothing stopping them amending the election laws to suit their side. Gerrymandering (adjusting boundaries to increase the chances of your side winning) is a common strategy, particularly by Republicans (see this excellent graphic from The Guardian), but also increasingly, by Democrats. The Supreme Court has even declined to overturn clearly partisan gerrymandering in recent decisions.

Meanwhile, since 2020, 19 states have passed laws to restrict voting, or to make it harder to vote. The aforementioned Brian Kemp, for example, while protecting the 2020 election from Trump on the one hand, did plenty to make it hard for voters in Georgia on the other. This included restricting drop boxes, limiting absentee ballots and making it illegal to pass out water to people standing in line to vote.

But as the Washington Post reports, “voters in allsix major battlegrounds where Donald Trump tried to reverse his defeat in 2020 rejected election-denying candidates”. Three candidates for Secretary of State (Michigan, Arizona and Nevada) and at least two for Governor (Pennsylvania and Wisconsin) who promised to put election administration under partisan control (some even pledged to “de-certify” the 2020 results), all lost.

In a rather weird system it is the US states who send the delegates to the Electoral College, and the Electoral College which ultimately selects the President. These State results bode well for the 2024 Presidential election, making it harder for rouge state legislatures to send alternate delegates to vote for a Presidential candidate of their choosing, rather than the one for whom their citizens voted.

One thing to watch, however: where the Democrats have taken majorities in all three State branches (e.g. Minnesota) – will they be able to resist adjusting rules to suit their side? Let’s wait and see.

Lesson for Australia? Thank God for the AEC.

3. Such a thing as too much democracy?

Too much democracy? Unlike Australia, in the US voters to select the person who will stand as a candidate for their party in ‘primaries’. On the surface this sounds democratic. However, it has unforeseen consequences. As Pew Research points out the most engaged tend to turn out to vote in primaries, and these tend to be the most extreme of both sides of politics. The result is more crazy, partisan candidates than the ‘average voter’ might want. Thankfully, this time, many of them like Dr Oz in Pennsylvania, lost.

4. Is political polarisation changing?

For a couple of decades, the prevailing view has been that as America becomes more ethnically diverse, more people will vote Democrat. Since the Civil Rights movements of the 1960s and 1970s, most non-white voters have voted Democrat. However, at the 2020 election a growing number of Hispanic Americans and Black Americans (especially black men) voted Republican. This has continued in 2022. Education, not race, seems to be the strongest indicator of partisan leaning.

Finally…

I firmly recommend this Substack from Rob Richie on the growth of preferential voting in the US (or what they call ‘ranked choice voting’).

https://open.substack.com/pub/democracysos/p/democracys-moment?r=4mpw4&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post

Probably the electoral reform with the greatest momentum in the US right now.