What form of government would you like to see?

[Michael Hardner]

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

I didn't know that, but it makes sense.

As such, I don't see the point of fretting too much over lower voter turnout and I especially don't favour putting the voting button in the home, or horrors such as 1-800 American Icon style voting, attaching ballots to pizza cartons on voting day, or funding juggling clowns to create a festival atmosphere around the voting stations.

[Michael Hardner]

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"....

But China eliminated lead gasoline in an incredibly shorter timeframe.

The virtue of democracy is that it slows things down so that nothing gets done, in a sense.

[Remiel]

...stuff...

Have you ever heard of the book Jennifer Government? Though it is not necessarily a super realistic dystopian future, it is one in which mega corporations (two, specifically) basically rule, though the government still nominally exists. Everyone's last name is that of the company they work for.

[Remiel]

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.

That is ridiculous. Old people already have the most influenced, and they tend to be biased more towards the right than the average person. As well, it virtually guarantees that anyone who has denied the opportunity to excel when they were young will be unable to become a leader when they are old. Women never would have become legislators if a system like this was in place because they were denied the opportunity to contribute as much as you propose would be needed.

[August1991]

Anyone got a better idea?

My measure of government is whether the State allows a civilized way to change leaders. Democracy does that. IMV, a civilized State means that a leader hands State power to another leader without violence, imprisonment or death. Few countries in the world are civilized. America has been civilized for over 200 years.

The ultimate test of civility or democracy is whether a government leader hands State power to someone else, even someone hated and a political opponent. In the US, John Adams did exactly that after one term in office. IOW, democracy is a civilized way to choose a government, and exercise the power of the State.

To change Churchill's quote, random government may be bad but it is better than any other way to organize the State.

What form of government would I like to see? Well, I would want to live in a civilized State where government leaders change power peacefully. IMV and perhaps yours Argus, too many people in the world live in uncivilized places.

----

Here's my basic point: it is not the organization of government or the State that matters, or even how the government is chosen. A civilized State means the simple possibility to change government leaders peacefully - without death, or revolution.

Trudeau said that the measure of a civilized society is how the majority treats the minority. Well, here's my measure of a civilized State: how State power is transferred. IMV, people live in a civilized, democratic society if their leaders transfer State power to opponents peacefully, without violence. For me, America became a great country when Bush Senior in 1993 stood on a platform before the world and gave the presidency to Clinton.

For me, that is civilization.

Edited July 10, 2010 by August1991

[Argus]

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

I wonder how many would protect their right to vote when more than half won't bother to cross the street to cast one.

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

Of course it can be done. We do it all the time. Can it be done perfectly? No. Any test will be imperfect. At one point the test of merit was owning land. If you owned land you could vote. If not, you weren't considered important enough, capable enough, of value enough.

That was probably related to the fact there was no income tax. If you didn't own anything, land or a business, you paid no taxes, so they figured you shouldn't have any say in government. Did that produce a more capable, more knowledgeable electorate? I don't know. Hard to imagine it could be worse.

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.

They aren't "required" to do anything to inform themselves but glance at the headlines occasionally. What you can glean from the media and candidates web sites is almost always superficial and the product of spin doctors anyway.

[Argus]

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

That is probably true. But are there a lot of morons out there with clever opinions? I mean, are there are a lot of people who consistently get 80 in IQ tests and become brain surgeons and rocket scientists?

[Argus]

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.

Well, that's one rather contented viewpoint. It's not one I've ever heard expressed in this country, though. The common belief is people don't vote because they don't think their vote means anything. Either they believe the parties vying for power are identical anyway, or they believe that as one person they can't really have any influence or affect.

[Argus]

My measure of government is whether the State allows a civilized way to change leaders. Democracy does that. IMV, a civilized State means that a leader hands State power to another leader without violence, imprisonment or death.

Well, okay, but is civilized government all we can hope for? Can we not aspire to capable government, or even brilliant government? Is it civilized that one venal, self-serving weasel replaces another? Is it really uncivilized if an emperor rules over all with benign, caring wisdom and honesty?

Have any of the people who have ruled England over the past forty years been as smart and capable as Elizabeth?

[Yesterday]

That is ridiculous. Old people already have the most influenced, and they tend to be biased more towards the right than the average person. As well, it virtually guarantees that anyone who has denied the opportunity to excel when they were young will be unable to become a leader when they are old. Women never would have become legislators if a system like this was in place because they were denied the opportunity to contribute as much as you propose would be needed.

Oh. I did not realize retirement age people were mostly righties. Interesting opinion. I don't understand your correlation in your comments about this chance to excel or the comment about women. Experience always counts, the more the better and as for who gets the chance or not, well I don't see how being hired in retirement (55ish-65ish) has anything to do with the beginning of such persons carreer and whether they get the chance to excel early on. One could say they are a lifetime apart. Experience does not always relate to excellence but it always leads to knowledge.

[Jack Weber]

But China eliminated lead gasoline in an incredibly shorter timeframe.

The virtue of democracy is that it slows things down so that nothing gets done, in a sense.

Correctomundo...

That's my(and Buchannon's) point...

Dictatorship is fast...

Blech...I'm agreeing wuith Pat Buchannon...I have to punish myself...

Edited July 11, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Bonam]

Is it really uncivilized if an emperor rules over all with benign, caring wisdom and honesty?

Have any of the people who have ruled England over the past forty years been as smart and capable as Elizabeth?

I don't know if we can really judge Elizabeth's capabilities as an actual hands-on leader. She certainly fulfills her duties of a figurehead quite aptly, but we have no idea how good she would be in regards to making economic, social, and foreign policy.

I do understand your point though. That an educated, rational, and benign "philosopher king" could rule a society well. However that system has a critical flaw, if the mechanism that selects that philosopher king just once messes up, and installs the wrong kind of person, terrible tyranny could follow. Hence the advantage of democracy, a would-be tyrant's power is limited to a few short years, and even during their reign, is checked by other branches of government.

[TimG]

Is it really uncivilized if an emperor rules over all with benign, caring wisdom and honesty?

1) When choosing a system of government one must look at the the spread of possibilities - not cherry picked examples. The human experience with dictators shows that the words 'caring wisdom and honesty' and dictator almost never go together so choosing that form of government is like betting everything on '00' at the roulette table (i.e. sure you might win but chances are you will lose everything).

2) The knowledge problem in economics also applies governance. It is simply not possible for a single person to manage a complex modern state and decision making power and accountability must be distributed. Democracy at city, province levels is a better way to ensure this accountability.

3) Queen Liz only enjoys the popularity she does because she does not have to make decisions that would invariably piss some segment of the population off. If she did have decision making power she would be as reviled as any politician.

Edited July 11, 2010 by TimG

[bloodyminded]

Here's my basic point: it is not the organization of government or the State that matters, or even how the government is chosen. A civilized State means the simple possibility to change government leaders peacefully - without death, or revolution.

Trudeau said that the measure of a civilized society is how the majority treats the minority. Well, here's my measure of a civilized State: how State power is transferred. IMV, people live in a civilized, democratic society if their leaders transfer State power to opponents peacefully, without violence. For me, America became a great country when Bush Senior in 1993 stood on a platform before the world and gave the presidency to Clinton.

For me, that is civilization.

I understand what you're getting at (and the basic premise is a fair argument); but I don't think it's nitpicking to point out that Bush didn't "give" anything, and had no power to do so...for exactly the positive reasons you have mentioned about such a system.

[Argus]

1) When choosing a system of government one must look at the the spread of possibilities - not cherry picked examples. The human experience with dictators shows that the words 'caring wisdom and honesty' and dictator almost never go together so choosing that form of government is like betting everything on '00' at the roulette table (i.e. sure you might win but chances are you will lose everything).

If you're talking dictator as in people who shot their way into power, then yes, you're correct. But if you go back further in history to when all those kings and emperors had absolute power I think you'll find a difference. When the system is set up for you to be dictator, and stable, and you really face little to no threat of anyone toppling you then you don't need to be that harsh. Now granted, laws were harsh back then regardless, but then society was different, and everyone was harsh by our standards.

And when you've been raised and educated since birth to be the dictator you tend to have a better understanding of what's needed than, say, some guy who was teaching philosophy at Harvard a couple of years ago, or a guy who used to run a football team.

So what do we think a modern emperor would do in the way of being harsh against us? Basically, he wants things running well, and that means an educated, healthy, and relatively happy work force (unhappy people are unproductive people). So one would assume he or she would do their best to bring about those conditions.

That doesn't mean you won't get your head chopped off if you say nasty things about him, I suppose, but no one is forcing you to say nasty things about the emperor.

[Michael Hardner]

I wonder how many would protect their right to vote when more than half won't bother to cross the street to cast one.

They may not care to exercise their rights, but imagine if they threatened to take them away.

Of course it can be done. We do it all the time. Can it be done perfectly? No. Any test will be imperfect. At one point the test of merit was owning land. If you owned land you could vote. If not, you weren't considered important enough, capable enough, of value enough.

That was probably related to the fact there was no income tax. If you didn't own anything, land or a business, you paid no taxes, so they figured you shouldn't have any say in government. Did that produce a more capable, more knowledgeable electorate? I don't know. Hard to imagine it could be worse.

We do it all the time ? Are you referring to the rules that required voters to own land ? That's more or less as imperfect as any test there is.

They aren't "required" to do anything to inform themselves but glance at the headlines occasionally. What you can glean from the media and candidates web sites is almost always superficial and the product of spin doctors anyway.

Fair enough. And there are probably people who vote randomly or who vote based on the candidate's name. For those who look a little deeper, they would benefit from a better quality of debate.

[eyeball]

What form of government would you like to see?

I'd be happy just being able to see what it's up to.

[maple_leafs182]

delete...

Edited July 12, 2010 by maple_leafs182

[Michael Hardner]

I'd be happy just being able to see what it's up to.

It's coming.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=16717

[maple_leafs182]

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?

Democracy isn't the best form of government. Democracy doesn't protect the rights of every person, 51% of the population can take away the rights of the other 49%, democracy is mob rule.

Politics isn't the big problem, it is a problem but just not the big problem. Universal suffrage will continue as long as we use a monetary based economy, this form of an economy has no morals. It creates pollution, it creates poverty and all the violence and crime associated with that, we fight wars over it, and it enslaves nations and citizens threw debt. The monetary based economy is the big problem.

First we should take a survey of all the resources on the planet so we know what we have to work with. We then design new cities using state of the art within the confines of the resources. These cities should be the most efficient, environment friendly and sustainable. The cities would rely on robots to replace human labor from repetitive and redundant tasks. The cities will create an abundance of food and supply homes to all the citizens. Everything we make will be as recyclable as possible. No more money, no more patents, no more copyright, no more recessions or depression, no more poverty, no more pollution and best of all, no more advertisement.

That is a Resource Based Economy.

Before that happens, we first need to realize working together is for more beneficial to all of us, we we need to change our values.

[Jack Weber]

Democracy isn't the best form of government. Democracy doesn't protect the rights of every person, 51% of the population can take away the rights of the other 49%, democracy is mob rule.

Politics isn't the big problem, it is a problem but just not the big problem. Universal suffrage will continue as long as we use a monetary based economy, this form of an economy has no morals. It creates pollution, it creates poverty and all the violence and crime associated with that, we fight wars over it, and it enslaves nations and citizens threw debt. The monetary based economy is the big problem.

First we should take a survey of all the resources on the planet so we know what we have to work with. We then design new cities using state of the art within the confines of the resources. These cities should be the most efficient, environment friendly and sustainable. The cities would rely on robots to replace human labor from repetitive and redundant tasks. The cities will create an abundance of food and supply homes to all the citizens. Everything we make will be as recyclable as possible. No more money, no more patents, no more copyright, no more recessions or depression, no more poverty, no more pollution and best of all, no more advertisement.

That is a Resource Based Economy.

Before that happens, we first need to realize working together is for more beneficial to all of us, we we need to change our values.

That sounds like Anarcho-Syndicalism...It's a form of Leftist Libertarianism....

[ToadBrother]

Democracy isn't the best form of government. Democracy doesn't protect the rights of every person, 51% of the population can take away the rights of the other 49%, democracy is mob rule.

Which is why there have been exceedingly few democracies of that type throughout history. Pretty much all modern democracies are constitutional representative democracies, generally containing some sort of bill of rights to constrain the state, for its own interests, or simply as the tool of the majority, from undermining or removing the rights of minorities. It is not, of course, perfect, and constitutions, or at least the interpretations of constitutions, change over time. Still, all in all, I'd say modern democracies have done a better job than just about any governmental system in history in preserving basic liberties, if for no other reason that they actually recognize basic liberties as an inherent aspect of those who live within the state.

[ToadBrother]

I don't know if we can really judge Elizabeth's capabilities as an actual hands-on leader. She certainly fulfills her duties of a figurehead quite aptly, but we have no idea how good she would be in regards to making economic, social, and foreign policy.

To a very large degree we are not privy to the Queen's discussions with her Prime Ministers. Obviously, publicly, a constitutional monarch must be above the fray, but in private we can only guess at whether she plays any role or not. The evidence, as scant as it is, from her predecessors, is that they will advise the Prime Minister on a course of action in particular cases. The last monarch, for instance, that we know of who threatened to use their considerable Reserve Powers was George V over one of the Irish Home Rule bills in 1914, but I don't think there's any evidence after that.

I do understand your point though. That an educated, rational, and benign "philosopher king" could rule a society well. However that system has a critical flaw, if the mechanism that selects that philosopher king just once messes up, and installs the wrong kind of person, terrible tyranny could follow. Hence the advantage of democracy, a would-be tyrant's power is limited to a few short years, and even during their reign, is checked by other branches of government.

Indeed. One can, in a way, see that with the transition of power from Lenin to Stalin. While Lenin was hardly a benign philosopher king, he was, compared to Stalin, a considerable less dangerous ruler. Lenin picked Trotsky as his heir apparent, and again, while Trotsky was far from the saint that a lot of Trotskyites and Marxist-Leninists have claimed he was, still, at the end of the day, Stalin had the will, the means and the sheer ruthlessness to override Lenin's wishes (literally suppressing Lenin's will and driving Trotsky into exile and ultimately having him killed).

While no governing system is perfect, and certainly democracies suffer from inherent flaws, what we have accomplished in most modern democracies is that wonder of the peaceful transition of government. Few people in the wealthy industrialized world can understand the contortions, strains and dangers that so often go along with the death of a dictator, the uncertainty that will impact any state of this kind. One only has to look as far as the collapse of Alexander the Great's empire, or of the Carolingian Empire after Charlemagne's death, to see how governments that are too reliant on a single talented figure can destabilize and ultimately collapse or fragment if those that succeed them do not have the skills, or often the political capital to make it work. It is impossible to see how a meritocracy would be any less immune to these pressures, and even if you found a peaceful way to transfer power, there's no guarantee that an individual of talent and ability might not be altered; Baron Acton's wise observation "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." holds true to me.

Oddly, the government to me that most resembles the classical idea of the meritocracy is China. While not a pure meritocracy, still it has translated since Deng Xiaoping's time into a technocratic system where some very talented and pragmatic, if fairly dictatorial (by our standards), individuals have gained power. China seems to have found a balance that the USSR could not, of maintaining a powerful centralized state, peaceful transfer of power and, generally, fairly competent individuals, over the last three decades. I can't approve of the Chinese system, but one does have to recognize that not-inconsiderable accomplishment.

Still, I'll stick with democracy and with universal suffrage. Yes, it's flawed, often giving those with a minimum of economic input a great deal of importance. Still there is more legitimacy to my mind that the governed, and by that I mean all the governed, have some say in who governs them. And considering, all in all, the successes of modern democracies in producing stable, effective governments that have seen a substantial increase in the well-being of their citizens, I can't imagine any reason to change. I think one of the biggest problems is that we get wrapped up in the mistakes of our governments, and get blinded to the substantial achievements of the last few centuries.

[myata]

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.

I'm in for it, with a couple of additions:

a) qualification - voter takes a quiz to qualify to a counted ballot. Perhaps links to information on the issue can be provided in the same context.

b ) refinement - once a general choice has been established professionals refine and detalize it to the solution that will be implemented.

2) The Borg Collective

Could be the next step once we figure out #1.

Edited July 13, 2010 by myata

[TimG]

a) qualification - voter takes a quiz to qualify to a counted ballot. Perhaps links to information on the issue can be provided in the same context.

Who gets to pick the questions? There are many issues where the facts are disputed so people would fail a quiz because they reject the government's version of the facts. Climate change is a good example where many in the electorate dispute the facts as claimed by the government/bureaucracy. Edited July 13, 2010 by TimG