Everyone in Mauritius is talking about electoral reforms right now, more precisely Rama Sithanen’s proposal for a dose of proportionality as well as the best loser system.

I was thinking about something today. Our population in Mauritius is more than 1 million. Our Parliament, because of its physical dimensions and practices set up by some Englishmen decades ago, is limited to around 80 members i.e. 0.0067% of the population.

Is it normal that 0.0067% of the population decide for 1,200,000 people? Is that fair or logical in the era of the Internet and Social Networks?

On Facebook for example, one can set up a poll and get hundred of votes in less that 1h (easily more that the 80 people we have in our Parliament). Now, one can argue that the 80 members of Parliament are more honest and more knowledgeable that the 1,199,920 others but we all know that’s a bag of crap! They are not more honest or knowledgeable that the rest of us…

A few years ago, I set up Ideas to make Mauritius better! and, for some time, it worked pretty well. The system, as used by Barack Obama during his first campaign, allows people to submit proposals which are then upvoted / downvoted by others. In the end, only the most worthwhile proposals prevail. Civil servants are then responsible to implement these proposals.

Can this type of absolute democracy exist? One where the whole population decides and civil servants implement without any need for any middlemen?

Seems utopic? What do you think?