A Visitor to the Future - 73 - Voting and Volition
I rubbed my forehead, "So, the Consortium as a whole wants everyone to be involved in the decision-making process, but they don't want everyone to vote? Could you break that down for me a bit more?"
Sarkona tapped the table with one hand as their eyes glanced up, towards the wood-panelled ceiling, taking a few seconds to think about how best to explain. "So," they said finally, "The first thing you should understand is that there isn't a law or anything that prevents anyone voting. It's more of a common wisdom - a form of guidance or suggestion. I think in the early days they toyed around with the idea of making it so only experts could vote on certain subjects - but that's a slippery slope. That would mean if the scope of the issue was wrong they could end up excluding a lot of relevant people. How it was explained to me as a child was a three-step process. First, if you don't know anything about the subject, or have no stake in it one way or the other, then don't vote. Second, if you feel you must vote - read the issue's reading list as a minimum, and use the Consortium to identify any possible issues with the reading list. Third, discuss the issue with peers, do further research, and think about the possible outcomes of the vote. Only then would you register your vote."
"Are there any consequences if anyone doesn't follow those steps?"
"No," said Sarkona, "I mean, vote choices are public, and a lot of people choose to publicly post the reasoning behind their choices, but there's no requirement to check that everyone did their background work. But if you voted on every issue in front of you without doing any actual engagement with the material or processes behind it? That wouldn't be smart!"
I thought of people I'd known in my own time, often prone to voting based on a gut reaction or incomplete information. I'd been guilty of it myself - voting for a candidate despite having relied on second-hand research due to time constraints or a lack of resources. But if I hadn't been under those time constraints - if I'd had the Consortium to verify the accuracy of any information presented to me? I could see how voting in the Consortium could be engaging instead of frustrating.
"Oh, you can also certify as a Comprehensive Voter," added Sarkona, "That involves demonstrating that you understand the voting principles. You have to re-take the exam every ten years. It is the most popular certification in the Consortium - I think taking it is essential."
"Why?" I asked.
"Well, for one, what's the harm in refreshing your knowledge every decade? And for another, voting on subjects that are relevant to me feels sort of like my duty to the Consortium."
"I have another question - have there been any cases of voting manipulation within the Consortium? It seems like forcing a majority vote on an issue might let you get your way if you trigger that vote when you knew for a fact that you had a majority."
"The modern Consortium? No. In the early days, people tried and probably succeeded. But there has been plenty of time since then to get the system working as it should. I've told you about your right to privacy within the Consortium before, well, conspiracy to manipulate the decision-making process is one of the very few exceptions to that right. We need a process we can trust isn't being manipulated by anyone, so it is generally accepted that the Consortium being on the lookout for people trying to unfairly influence the system is in everyone's best interest."
"Does the Consortium ever get that wrong? Flag someone who was making a joke, that sort of thing?"
"Sometimes," Sarkona said, "But any flagged action is taken to court, so there are plenty of chances to get that resolved. The specifics of the law really aren't my area of expertise though - reading legal documents tires me out. That's why I set you up with that lecture on the Promise of Sol. I'd suggest speaking to a Lawmaster about that one."
I made a note on my tablet for later. "Have there been any other issues with the process in recent times?"
"There are always issues in one form or another, but the most recent I can think of are certain Orgs which keep submitting issues with a slight bias in the issue description or reading list. Thankfully that's easy to flag with the Consortium, so they don't make it past their first review process."
"Review process?"
"Ah, right - so, any issue submitted has to be reviewed before it goes into general circulation. The Consortium picks at random from a willing pool of reviewers to do that. Some of them might be Auditors or Arbiters, but more of them would likely be random citizens. Only once they've agreed it presents the issue relatively impartially does it get to the actual voting or consultation stage."
"How many people are generally picked?" I asked.
"Depends on the issue!" said Sarkona, "For something small in scope - let's use the rally track near a town, it'd be in the hundreds, people from both sides. For Consortium-wide issues, those can easily be subject to scrutiny from hundreds of thousands of reviewers."
"That seems like a lot!" I said.
"I always think it's too few! There are more than twenty billion people in the Sol system - so a few hundred thousand is a drop in the ocean really. But the review process only picks out glaring issues - and don't forget that you can always see Consortium and Auditor commentary on any issue at any time in the voting process."
"Like the news feeds?" I remarked, remembering the way in which the Consortium could highlight questionable information.
"Exactly!" Sarkona leaned back and patted their stomach, "Now, talking about individual voting preferences leads me to another, very similar and relevant topic - what shall we have for desert?"