Why the gay marriage plebiscite in Australia is good for democracy

This week Australians are opening envelopes so they can tell the government what they think about gay marriage. While there’s been significant debate about the value and validity of the plebiscite, I’m excited by what we can learn from an exercise in mass participation, and the potential for it to reinvigorate democracy.

Can you imagine if voting on proposed laws, like gay marriage, was as simple as signing an online petition? Let’s consider how differently we might view our system of government and the laws that are made.

“We’re committed to every Australian having their say.”

While it’s wishful thinking to believe this suggests a new approach to governing, in this case the Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, is staying true to his election promise and inviting input on the single sex marriage legislation.

The major undertaking of posting out a paper survey, to every voting-age Australian, would usually only have been reserved for a referendum, however, in this case, the outcome is non-binding and will only influence the passage of the bill, not decide it.

Experts say “This plebiscite is no more than a glorified opinion poll — a 122-million-dollar opinion poll”.

Yet the government was not willing to accept the results from opinion polls already undertaken on the issue.

Previous polls were conducted using the traditional research method of calling around 1500 Australians, who picked up their landline telephones and let their dinner go cold answering a few questions.

Over the past few years there have been frequent criticisms of this approach, saying the results are skewed to the older generation of people who still have a fixed phone line. Another common concern is around lack of representation. How can such a small sample include the views of our diverse communities?

There are always concessions with public opinion research. Although the postal vote allows every voting age Australian to participate, it doesn’t mean they will. The results are skewed due to self-selection bias because it’s voluntary. Many people argue that the method is unscientific and therefore, the results cannot be trusted.

So while statisticians and social science researchers are dissecting the process to check for accuracy and authority, the community is alive with the kind of discussion and debate that is less potent when a survey is conducted across a select sample.

Every adult is given the chance to have their say. This makes it more like a group decision, than simply tapping into the thoughts of a small sample.

I’m curious to see the difference it makes when we are collectively asked to choose, as opposed to viewing the statistics drawn from a tiny group, that is invited to participate behind closed doors. A potent example of this collective action is explored in the film No, about the plebiscite in Chile.

In the past, the large overhead of undertaking similar outreach to the postal survey, has been an excuse for not consulting the community. However, the rise of internet access and social media weakens this argument.

Back in 2010 Malcolm Gladwell wrote in an article for The New Yorker, “With Facebook and Twitter and the like, the traditional relationship between political authority and popular will has been upended, making it easier for the powerless to collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns.”

With internet penetration moving closer to 100% of the population and public access terminals in libraries and other public spaces, it’s inevitable online becomes the standard method due to its ease of participation and lowered costs of engagement.

Right now online is not a fail-safe voting platform to make collective decisions, however the technology for mass participation is coming of age, helped by advancements like blockchain identity to prevent false votes.

I’m trusting the very act of engagement, of marking that paper and licking the envelope, whets the appetite of the Australian people for wanting more. I hope it encourages us to demand the right to contribute to other issues that impact our lives.

We might not turn into a nation like Switzerland — where they ask citizens for input every 3–4 weeks — but we can hope to see how a more active citizenry, using a participatory democracy model, can help solve a lot of challenges of our time.

Let’s just figure out how to do it without blowing the budget!