I was debating politics at 3 AM while roaming around downtown after AtlSecCon, and made a point that I think is worth fleshing out. The issue of elected senators came up, and whether they should be elected, how long the term should be, or if they should continue to be appointed.
Canada is a representative democracy; that is, we elect leaders who represent us in parliament. The government should in theory at any given time want the same thing as the average Canadian. The problem is, the average Canadian is a moving target. Personally, as a group, provinces, no matter how you split it up, beliefs, opinions, and information change. System control theory and political science are clearly at two entirely opposite ends of the academic spectrum but I made an analogy to PID loops that I think holds up.
A perfect democracy would vote on an issue per issue basis but that’s unfeasible for many reasons. Aside from manpower, there’s an episode of the Orville that both implements it, and scares the hell out of me, so it’s probably a bad idea. Let’s just assume that’s not happening. Instead, we elect members of parliament to represent us, roughly on geographical and cultural lines, and for a four-year term.
Senators are considered the “sober second thought.” They are appointed by the political party of the day and remain in that position until death. The question was, should senators also be elected? A lot of people have an issue with life appointments and the idea that unelected people should have the power to stop bills from becoming law. I would argue the opposite.
A PID loop is an algorithm for ‘holding an output to a specific value.’ The most common example is that of cruise control; the system manages the throttle to hold the vehicle at the desired speed. It even has to compensate for various things like driving up a hill or coasting down the other side. Just like how the government should reflect the average Canadian, even if popular opinion changes all of a sudden. It smooths out the transition.
PID loops have 3 parts: The Proportional, the Integral, and the Derivative. All three of these have different effects on the output.
The first thing you do is find the error. How far off are we? Just take the difference between the target and the current value. The PID acts on this error.
The proportional gain, or P, affects the output as a multiplier. If we’re off by 10 km/h, and the P gain is 0.1, then the speed will be adjusted by 1km/h every time the loop runs. It’s relatively slow, but effective. The problem with proportional control is the overshoot. Generally, with process control, you want the output to be close to the desired value at all times, and doing so requires a high gain. Let’s say the gain was 10, we’re doing 110km/h, and we want to be going 100km/h: The car would go from 110km/h, to 100km/h, but keep going down to 90km/h before the control loop had a chance to react. Then it will shoot back up to 110, back down to 90, and so on. It’s called an “undampened oscillation.” Obviously, that’s a bad thing. That also looks suspiciously like a government with no senate. Laws could be written, enacted, and repealed every 4 years. This would be like driving a car, but only slamming the brakes or flooring it. It’s not a comfortable ride. The country would have large swings in policy and law every time election comes around. Cruise control is likely preferable.
The integral, or I, in a PID loop effectively takes the average difference of the previous values, and uses it to dampen the output. You can think of it like the shock absorber in a car’s suspension. The car would bounce up and down without dampening. Instead of going from 110 to 100 to 90 and back, we go from 110 to 102, to 99, to 100, and then stay there. My argument is that the Senate is the integral.
Derivatives are rarely used in process control so let’s leave that out for now. We could model the Governor General as a derivative gain of 0, rubber stamping the law except under exceptional circumstances.
Since we model the parliament as a proportional gain, it is clear that the most effective way to maintain the output is to model the Senate after integral control. That is, get to the median quick, and hold there. Instead of throttling speed, it’s re-centering to match the average Canadian’s position on the political spectrum. Clearly politics is at least 2 dimensional (authoritarian vs libertarian, and economic left vs economic right) and this can be applied to both independently.
My immediate concern with elected senators is that they can no longer be modelled by an integral. If they can also change based on the whims of voters, then they simply become another proportional gain, albeit with longer terms My issue with this is that the output won’t necessarily settle in the middle. It would almost certainly have ‘resonant frequencies.’ When people vote for an MP, they’re likely to vote for a Senator on party lines. Officially, senators don’t have party affiliations anymore. Unofficially, they’re tribal creatures like the rest of us.
My point is, we need a damper, and I’m not sure if we can have that if Senators can be tossed out because the public disagrees with them. Once Senators are appointed, they can’t be removed by the government of the day, just as the proportional gain has no effect on the integral gain. They’re able to vote on their own, without a caucus to force their hand, and without the threat of elections.
Just as the integral looks at the previous speeds on the car, the Senate is representative of the government, historically, at various points over the last 30-40 years. A government appoints senators that align with their values at the time. The longer ago they were brought in, the less they affect the average. In my opinion, it’s nearly a perfect analogy to PID loop control. A car would be undrivable with two proportional gains, and I worry if we remove life terms, that we’re going to go off the rails.