What form of government would you like to see?

[Argus]

I've never really understood why people seem to believe universal suffrage is the best way of running a society. True, it's, for the most part, better than what it replaced. Churchill was probably right on that score. But who said that it was the ultimate form of government and that nothing else could be better? That seems to be the universal attitude.

I've said before that I don't have any particular attachment to universal suffrage. I think when you don't have to fight for something you don't take it seriously. When something is handed to you you don't respect it. One-man, one-vote might work in a small community, but not in the era of busy lives, barely competent media (which most people don't pay a lot of attention to anyway) and skillful spin doctors with lying politicians. Few people take the time and effort to see behind the headlines to what politicians are really doing, or have to understand the complexities of modern government, budgeting, and economics.

In short, the universal electorate is, by and large, not competent to make intelligent decisions about who is to rule over them.

I've said before that a a meritocracy is the only kind of government which makes sense. The only problem is in assigning the people to judge the merits of the people who will rule.

Anyone got a better idea?

[dre]

Universal sufferage isnt just about electing good leaders.

Its crowd control.

Sure there might be better ways of choosing good leaders, but a populace that has been shut out of that process will turn on the leadership when something goes wrong. If you dont trick people into thinking they have say, they become a lot harder to handle.

So even a society with a "better" means of establishing government wouldnt work as well.

[Shady]

In short, the universal electorate is, by and large, not competent to make intelligent decisions about who is to rule over them.

I definitely agree. What makes it even worse is all of the stupid get out the vote campaigns that take place before every election. Although it's usually in America. I don't want to get out the vote. I want people to vote who actually want to vote. Not idiot drones (like the hope n change morons in '08) that don't know a damn thing of any substance regarding serious issues. It makes for bad government, and bad policies.

[Remiel]

Not idiot drones (like the hope n change morons in '08) that don't know a damn thing of any substance regarding serious issues. It makes for bad government, and bad policies.

Because no idiot drones vote for the Republicans, none at all...

In any case, on Argus' point I doubt that intelligence or competence could be meaningfully correlated to the people choose to vote. The best indicator I know of is that if you are old you are much more likely to vote, but that is about it.

[Bonam]

Here's a few random ideas...

1) The Internet Direct Democracy

Rather than a representative system, everyone has a direct say in government, should they choose to utilize it. It would be structured as some sort of internet forum, where every citizen over a certain age is able to post ideas, proposals, and vote on them. Individuals who contribute more will have greater influence, while those who contribute less will have less influence.

2) The Borg Collective

As technology progresses, direct linking of minds to computers, to other minds, could become a serious possibility. If such a trend occurs, a society could potentially all "share their thoughts" in such a way and quickly come to collective decisions as one giant brain/organism. Completely opposed to my individualist ideology, such a society might nonetheless be successful...

3) The Corporate State

The state is a corporation, and every citizen is an employee, from birth until death (unless they leave the state). Since it is profitable for it to do so, the corporation provides education, support, etc, for employees until they reach an age where they can be hired for useful work. Those who show merit are promoted through the ranks.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

How about this. We completely do away with campaign advertising and money in politics.

The biggest problem isnt that we have bad leaders its that by the same they get elected theyve sold so many promises to special interests they are hardly serving each other anymore.

Instead of spam advertising, each candidate writes an essay on their platform and policies, thats published on the internet and sent to every home. Voters that can prove they read the essays by answering a few short test questions about their content are allowed to vote. Voters that didnt bother to read the material are not.

[bush_cheney2004]

I definitely agree. What makes it even worse is all of the stupid get out the vote campaigns that take place before every election. Although it's usually in America. I don't want to get out the vote....

Yea...those stupid Americans always trying to get out the vote....instead of making it mandatory like Australia!

How ironic that Canadians polled in favor of wanting to vote in an American federal election over their own in 2008.

[Remiel]

Sorry guys, but I am going to put on my " criticizing jerk " hat here with these suggestions and say why I think most of them just would not work.

Here's a few random ideas...

1) The Internet Direct Democracy

Rather than a representative system, everyone has a direct say in government, should they choose to utilize it. It would be structured as some sort of internet forum, where every citizen over a certain age is able to post ideas, proposals, and vote on them. Individuals who contribute more will have greater influence, while those who contribute less will have less influence.

This is a terrible idea. It is circular. Contributing more is not a good measure without being able to judge the quality of the contribution. Yet, to judge the quality of contribution, you have to have a system in place for who gets to determine what counts as quality. Under your system, those would be the people who contribute more. So, the people who contribute a ton of crap get to judge that their crap is worth more than other peoples good policy.

2) The Borg Collective

As technology progresses, direct linking of minds to computers, to other minds, could become a serious possibility. If such a trend occurs, a society could potentially all "share their thoughts" in such a way and quickly come to collective decisions as one giant brain/organism. Completely opposed to my individualist ideology, such a society might nonetheless be successful...

We could talk about this, but I do not think it behooves us to invent an electoral system for a world that does not exist, if it ever will, and instead try to focus on this one.

3) The Corporate State

The state is a corporation, and every citizen is an employee, from birth until death (unless they leave the state). Since it is profitable for it to do so, the corporation provides education, support, etc, for employees until they reach an age where they can be hired for useful work. Those who show merit are promoted through the ranks.

I think this shares a similar problem to the first in that there is no internal way to decide who gets to make the first decisions. Someone has to judge what counts as merit in the first place. Who judges the judge? In such a system, every citizen must also be a shareholder. That may be sort of implied but it must be explicit. I wonder though how you would manage the dividends. Is there one share for every citizen, with all other considerations handled through salaries?

How about this. We completely do away with campaign advertising and money in politics.

The biggest problem isnt that we have bad leaders its that by the same they get elected theyve sold so many promises to special interests they are hardly serving each other anymore.

Instead of spam advertising, each candidate writes an essay on their platform and policies, thats published on the internet and sent to every home. Voters that can prove they read the essays by answering a few short test questions about their content are allowed to vote. Voters that didnt bother to read the material are not.

You are going to have to get a slyer than that if you want just a system to work. It would be about three nanoseoonds before the list of answers appeared online for anyone to just look at and copy from.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Remiel

[Bonam]

I think this shares a similar problem to the first in that there is no internal way to decide who gets to make the first decisions. Someone has to judge what counts as merit in the first place. Who judges the judge? In such a system, every citizen must also be a shareholder. That may be sort of implied but it must be explicit. I wonder though how you would manage the dividends. Is there one share for every citizen, with all other considerations handled through salaries?

I think, necessarily, a corporate state would not just be created from scratch but would arise gradually from a corporation gaining power and importance in a certain state until basically the government of that state is irrelevant in comparison to that corporation. This can be most readily imagined in terms of an international mega corporation setting up shop in some impoverished nation and for some reason deciding that it would be profitable to civilize the area and make it its base of operations (I got the idea from a science fiction novel). The financial clout of the corporation could essentially overwhelm the local government of an impoverished nation until all of society becomes dominated by it.

In this kind of scenario, the initial merit judgments would have been made long before the corporation ever became the state, and the fact that the corporation managed to arise to such a high position and level of profitability as to be able to become a state would confirm the validity of those judgments.

As for dividend, shares, etc... these are details that would need to be considered and worked out at length. I was just giving a few really basic brain storming type ideas (not that I necessarily support any of them). Every citizen having a share and otherwise being compensated through salary could work. I'm sure one could come up with other reasonable schemes as well.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Bonam

[Jack Weber]

I think,unfortunately,there's a pretty good case that we are a long way down the road to a Corporate state...

I'm no fan of a kook like Pat Buchannon,but in his recent book he makes the case that Democracy is dying all over the world because of two things:

1.Voter apathy in Western democracies has allowed the process to become eroded and ineffective.

2.Developing nations see how China has risen economically in an authoritarian regime and see no need to go throught the "politic of the half loaf" that democracy is.

[bloodyminded]

In this kind of scenario, the initial merit judgments would have been made long before the corporation ever became the state, and the fact that the corporation managed to arise to such a high position and level of profitability as to be able to become a state would confirm the validity of those judgments.

No, it would confirm the validity of the notion that power accrues more power to itself. But power is not in any way evidence of correctness or justness.

[bloodyminded]

Not idiot drones (like the hope n change morons in '08) that don't know a damn thing of any substance regarding serious issues. It makes for bad government, and bad policies.

I think you've forgotten that McCain-Palin campaigned on a practically identical platform of "hope and change." That's what the whole "maverick" thing was about.

[eyeball]

I think,unfortunately,there's a pretty good case that we are a long way down the road to a Corporate state...

I'm no fan of a kook like Pat Buchannon,but in his recent book he makes the case that Democracy is dying all over the world because of two things:

1.Voter apathy in Western democracies has allowed the process to become eroded and ineffective.

2.Developing nations see how China has risen economically in an authoritarian regime and see no need to go throught the "politic of the half loaf" that democracy is.

Voter apathy largely results from goddamn lying politician fatigue. As for China, it wouldn't be anywhere without a bunch of corrupt democracies and the migrant corporations they've dispatched to exploit the substandard environmental and human rights protection China allows.

The government we're likeliest to see in the future will be a parliament of increasingly mean animals gathering around a shrinking water-hole.

[Argus]

Here's a few random ideas...

1) The Internet Direct Democracy

Rather than a representative system, everyone has a direct say in government, should they choose to utilize it. It would be structured as some sort of internet forum, where every citizen over a certain age is able to post ideas, proposals, and vote on them. Individuals who contribute more will have greater influence, while those who contribute less will have less influence.

This has the same problem of universal suffrage in that most people aren't going to pay enough attention, aren't going to research things, and will be easily swayed by populist or simplistic solutions. Also, in my experience, the people who "contribute more" on internet forums tend to be kooks.

2) The Borg Collective

As technology progresses, direct linking of minds to computers, to other minds, could become a serious possibility. If such a trend occurs, a society could potentially all "share their thoughts" in such a way and quickly come to collective decisions as one giant brain/organism. Completely opposed to my individualist ideology, such a society might nonetheless be successful...

Do you want one panicky idiot to infect a million more panicky idiots in a nanosecond and have them all squealing like pigs and running in tandem towards or away from whatever has panicked them? I don't want to share the thoughts of some lunatic who can barely tie his shoes without assistance, or some deluded paranoid wack job with a tinfoil hat.

3) The Corporate State

The state is a corporation, and every citizen is an employee, from birth until death (unless they leave the state). Since it is profitable for it to do so, the corporation provides education, support, etc, for employees until they reach an age where they can be hired for useful work. Those who show merit are promoted through the ranks.

The problem with the corporate state is that ultimately someone has to control the corporation. In theory, that's the shareholders. But just like voters, individual shareholders rarely know much about the decisions made at the top, and even more rarely participate in any way. Corporate abuse and incompetence is legendary - witness the automakers, and even the boards of directors are often only mildly versed in what the corporation is up to. So again, even with a corporate state, assuming merit is the key to promotion (which is a big assumption) who ultimately controls the place?

[Argus]

No, it would confirm the validity of the notion that power accrues more power to itself. But power is not in any way evidence of correctness or justness.

Or even merit.

It all boils down to that. How do we judge the merit of potential government people? We don't even get to see their resumes, much less interview them.

I see two possible changes, both of which I've mentioned in previous posts, though separately. Combining them might have some advantage.

The first is to restrict voting rights based on some kind of demonstrated ability or achievement. The whole purpose of democracy, after all, is mostly self-defense - so we can kick out a government which becomes either tyrannical or incompetent. Ten thousand or a hundred thousand voters can do that as easily as ten million voters.

So here's my idea. Certain groups representative of society get to put forward representatives to a board. You might have a farmer's representative, a fisherman, a lumberman, a banker, a lawyer, a doctor, union rep, a priest, a soldier. This board then examines those who want to run for office at a low level, say city or town councilor. They go over their credentials, their resumes, their educational accomplishments, their lives. They interview them, do their best to weed out the incompetents, the venal, self-serving liars and hustlers. They select two or three candidates for each position, then the voters get to choose from among them.

You have progressively higher level, more experienced boards to select progressively higher level, more experienced politicians, and would choose those who performed best at the lower levels.

Voting, for those who had been granted the right to vote, would be mandatory. How would you get the right to vote? Well, to start, take an IQ test. Then a knowledge test. But I also like the idea that people who have shown ability in life ought to be able to have more of a decision than those who have not. Ie, I think someone who started up a small business, or even a restaurant and made a go of it deserves more of a say in how society should be run than someone who dropped out of high school and has spent the rest of his life since then on pogey, on welfare, or working various minimum wage jobs. I don't think prisoners should vote either.

Edited July 10, 2010 by Argus

[Yesterday]

Age could be important in so far as giving a long perspective of performance and ideology if politicians were required to be of retirement age to apply. At first glance you say what? But really, there are more than enough possible candidates of that age bracket and their track records at that stage are tried and true. At least for Argus's concept.

So here's my idea. Certain groups representative of society get to put forward representatives to a board. You might have a farmer's representative, a fisherman, a lumberman, a banker, a lawyer, a doctor, union rep, a priest, a soldier. This board then examines those who want to run for office at a low level, say city or town councilor. They go over their credentials, their resumes, their educational accomplishments, their lives. They interview them, do their best to weed out the incompetents, the venal, self-serving liars and hustlers. They select two or three candidates for each position, then the voters get to choose from among them.

[bloodyminded]

Or even merit.

Right, of course, crucially. I should have added this one, since it speaks directly to the tenor of the proposals themselves.

It all boils down to that. How do we judge the merit of potential government people? We don't even get to see their resumes, much less interview them.

True. The most obvious "merit" we witness is the demonstrated skill of the PR industry in selling us the more top-level politicians. (This merit is real, but it's not the talent we're looking for in leaders and representatives.) And in fact, on some level, most people are aware of this, even as it tends to be ignored in a wilful turning-away-of-the-gaze. I believe, without exaggeration, that this involves a kind of Doublethink, which suggests to me that Orwell was indeed a genius.

The whole purpose of democracy, after all, is mostly self-defense - so we can kick out a government which becomes either tyrannical or incompetent.

Again, I agree. And where some people consider this a cynical view, I think it's actually at the heart of the democratic principle, along with accountability in other ways (watchdogs, separation of powers, etc).

Even a slogan as (intentionally) vapid as "hope and change" has this self-defense impetus at its core...because the slogan demands, and correctly, that change is needed. It's not only optimism, it's also an educated pessimism about the status quo, by definition; similarly, even if one believes the Tea Partiers to be drooling morons, the sense of anger and dispossessment that are the movement's genesis is very real, and very rational.

Edited July 10, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Smallc]

IQ tests are terrible.....

[Jack Weber]

IQ tests are terrible.....

I like trees....

[Michael Hardner]

How about this. We completely do away with campaign advertising and money in politics.

The biggest problem isnt that we have bad leaders its that by the same they get elected theyve sold so many promises to special interests they are hardly serving each other anymore.

Instead of spam advertising, each candidate writes an essay on their platform and policies, thats published on the internet and sent to every home. Voters that can prove they read the essays by answering a few short test questions about their content are allowed to vote. Voters that didnt bother to read the material are not.

I have advocated for this on these boards as well.

You can't really stop people from expressing themselves through advertising, but the parties have taken steps to reduce the amount of mass advertising. Hopefully, they have done it because they found that it doesn't benefit any one party to have large amounts of mass advertising, and in fact it makes it harder to put together good policies and to govern.

Keep in mind that the system was never designed for the masses but for an interested public.

[Michael Hardner]

1.Voter apathy in Western democracies has allowed the process to become eroded and ineffective.

In a sense, though, voter apathy is a measure of success. People not caring means, in a lot of ways, they have few government challenges and are pursuing happiness.

2.Developing nations see how China has risen economically in an authoritarian regime and see no need to go throught the "politic of the half loaf" that democracy is.

Democracies also have arms-length agencies that work for the common good but nothing as autocratic as China.

[Michael Hardner]

Voting, for those who had been granted the right to vote, would be mandatory. How would you get the right to vote? Well, to start, take an IQ test. Then a knowledge test. But I also like the idea that people who have shown ability in life ought to be able to have more of a decision than those who have not. Ie, I think someone who started up a small business, or even a restaurant and made a go of it deserves more of a say in how society should be run than someone who dropped out of high school and has spent the rest of his life since then on pogey, on welfare, or working various minimum wage jobs. I don't think prisoners should vote either.

Argus, of course none of this could ever come to pass without a revolution or something.

But beyond that, you're trying to construct a test to determine a person's worth. It can't be done.

The best measure of who should vote is who is interested in the issues, because those people research issues and they *read*. As such, I think we can achieve a goal of having more interested voters by making election information available via more challenging sources, i.e. internet and newspapers. These require people to read and evaluate. Short television excerpts via the news, or via advertising (much worse) should be phased out by the parties.

I could see the Conservatives and NDP going for this. The Liberals maybe like to stand on the soap box more, but I believe that the Liberals would buy into it too.

[Michael Hardner]

IQ tests are terrible.....

They are terrible. There are lots of clever people out there with poorly considered opinions.

[bloodyminded]

In a sense, though, voter apathy is a measure of success. People not caring means, in a lot of ways, they have few government challenges and are pursuing happiness.

Good point. Voter turnout has been nearly twice as high as ours in countries like Venezuela and Boliva.

[Jack Weber]

In a sense, though, voter apathy is a measure of success. People not caring means, in a lot of ways, they have few government challenges and are pursuing happiness.

Democracies also have arms-length agencies that work for the common good but nothing as autocratic as China.

Politicians love voter apathy...It means less people to make (phony) promises to.And,the message can be more focused.Otherwise,you have to go to the "Hope and Change" vacuousness of the Obama campaign to get people to vote who are otherwise NOT predisposed to do so.

I understand that democracies have arms length agencies,but they still work alot slower than an autocratic regime...If for no other reason than because they ar encumbered with dealing with the democratic virtue of dissent.In China,dissenters are "eliminated"....