Democracy Reconsidered

[Michael Hardner]

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/30/8-billion-and-14-years-later-ehealth-has-yet-to-finish-the-job

This is a story that everyone should be discussing - a colossal waste of resources resulting in almost nothing.   Yet almost nobody talks about this issue.  Instead, political dialogue is spent on feel-bad stories about snowflakes versus alt-right bogeymen.  A university student crying because Trump won vs. racist graffiti sprayed somewhere.  

There are reasons to discuss those bugaboos at some level, but let's face it: those identity issues satisfy a need for entertainment of a kind more than anything.  They get attention because of that entertainment value more than anything.

This makes me wonder about democracy.  It's better than many other systems, but the way it has evolved as a check against power doesn't address the huge scope and complexity of contemporary government.  People are more suited to gossiping and discussing easy gut-level topics...  as evidenced by MLW to a degree.  In my opinion, democracy needs to be designed so that subgroups or publics can be brought in for deep discussion and engagement on dry, boring topics that are important to the people in general.

That is not to say people are stupid, but rather disinterested.  The system generally works well enough that people can ignore it and focus on their own lives.  They certainly can't devote the time needed to research huge and complex topics like the TPP agreement even if the facts were readily accessible.

Back when government was a simpler machine, it made sense to just have a landowner tick a box on a piece of paper and be done with it.  But democracy was never designed to give 'the people' lordship over multi-billion dollar entities that govern so much of our lives today.

So - make government simpler, or engage the public (or issue-specific publics) at a deeper level, ie. enable a stronger citizenry to oversee complex areas of policy.

Democracy needs to change.  Otherwise, letting the people decide is worse than having benevolent dictators.

[Guest]

Money wasted by a government due to incompetence (I'm assuming that's what this is) will never be a big deal.  It's always happened, and it always will.  Imagine how wonderful the world would be if every tax dollar was wisely spent.

What was it Stalin said about death and statistics?

 

[drummindiver]

I've posted this story on my feed.Sorry,  if I felt outraged every time the governmebt wasted our money I'd have an anger problem. Or something.

[drummindiver]

The my democracy. CA lsrticle could go in a couple of threads, but I'm going to leave it right here wasted tax dollats. 

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-biggest-problem-with-mydemocracy-survey-is-the-questions&pubdate=2016-12-10

[poochy]

Ontario is a democracy?

Actually people are stupid, half of us are below average, and the average...well, I can only speak for myself but I sure hope ignorance truly is bliss, because they don't have much else going for them.

[SunnysideTroll]

The West is run more like a corporate dictatorship than it is a democracy if you ask me.

 

[Argus]

On 12/9/2016 at 7:37 AM, Michael Hardner said:

That is not to say people are stupid, but rather disinterested.  The system generally works well enough that people can ignore it and focus on their own lives.  They certainly can't devote the time needed to research huge and complex topics like the TPP agreement even if the facts were readily accessible.

You wouldn't have had to do a lot of complex research to see that Trump was lying about almost everything he said, but people still didn't do it. You wouldn't have to do a lot of complex research to know how a lot of the policies being supported by Wynne in Ontario and Trudeau in Canada make no sense. But people don't bother. It's not that they don't have the time. It's that they prefer to play video games, or read a mystery novel, or watch TV or something else that is more entertaining. People are not willing to forfeit much of their time to understand what the politicians are up to. They don't think their vote matters all that much, even if they're one of those who actually does vote, or they just think it's all too bothersome. Hey, they all lie anyway, right? And they don't say what they mean anyway. All their words are washed and put through the spin cycle before you ever get near them.  And who are these politicians anyway, but cardboard people we occasionally see in brief news bites? Trudeau won because he looked pleasant and smiley and friendly and attractive in news bites so people said 'Why not? He's probably better than that gray haired guy who frowns a lot."

I doubt many of the voters could have named more than a couple of his policies, and even fewer could have explained them.

On 12/9/2016 at 7:37 AM, Michael Hardner said:

Back when government was a simpler machine, it made sense to just have a landowner tick a box on a piece of paper and be done with it.  But democracy was never designed to give 'the people' lordship over multi-billion dollar entities that govern so much of our lives today.

Things were less complicated, and the people who got to vote understood them because they were landowners. They almost certainly knew most of the people running for office on a personal level too. How many of us have met any of our candidates, much less all of them? How many have even heard a single speech?

On 12/9/2016 at 7:37 AM, Michael Hardner said:

So - make government simpler, or engage the public (or issue-specific publics) at a deeper level, ie. enable a stronger citizenry to oversee complex areas of policy.

Democracy needs to change.  Otherwise, letting the people decide is worse than having benevolent dictators.

I don't see how you can make government simpler, which means a stronger citizenry. I've long advocated increasing, not decreasing the requirements needed to be able to cast a vote. I think even if you made people go across town to vote two thirds of the lazy minded ones today wouldn't bother. That doesn't necessarily mean a more knowledgeable electorate though, just a more determined one.

Maybe we should directly elect cabinet ministers. Only doctors and nurses get to vote for the health minister. Only soldiers and ex-soldiers get to vote for defense minister. Only union members could vote for the Labour minister, only lawyers could vote for the Justice minister, etc.

Or we could have a council, with one member representing union interests, one representing big business interest, one representing small business, farmers, miners, lawyers, doctors, soldiers, police, clergy, etc. That council would be tasked with choosing from among those who wanted to run for public office.

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, Argus said:

 Or we could have a council, with one member representing union interests, one representing big business interest, one representing small business, farmers, miners, lawyers, doctors, soldiers, police, clergy, etc. That council would be tasked with choosing from among those who wanted to run for public office.

Maybe we could elect councils as such to advise government directly ?

[TimG]

27 minutes ago, Argus said:

Maybe we should directly elect cabinet ministers. Only doctors and nurses get to vote for the health minister. Only soldiers and ex-soldiers get to vote for defense minister. Only union members could vote for the Labour minister, only lawyers could vote for the Justice minister, etc.

A technocracy would be many times worse because the 'elites' don't always put the needs of society over their personal benefit. The idea of letting labour unions pick who should set labour regulations is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. 

Democracy has one virtue which makes it better: is possible to peacefully dismiss the people in charge and replace them with new people with new ideas. We saw that when Trudeau took over and now we are seeing it with Trump. That does not mean the new ideas will necessarily be better. Just that there is a peaceful means clean house.

Edited December 26, 2016 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, TimG said:

A technocracy would be many times worse because the 'elites' don't always put the needs of society over their personal benefit. The idea of letting labour unions pick who should set labour regulations is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. 

Government listens to a host of stakeholders, should they ignore labour ?  "Letting them pick" sounds more like what private lobbyists do, I admit.

[Argus]

14 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Maybe we could elect councils as such to advise government directly ?

The government has no need of listening to such councils, especially where their advise differs from ideology or what is politically more profitable.

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, Argus said:

The government has no need of listening to such councils, especially where their advise differs from ideology or what is politically more profitable.

Too cynical.  I can't accept the idea that politics is a sham, or I wouldn't be here.

[Argus]

9 minutes ago, TimG said:

A technocracy would be many times worse because the 'elites' don't always put the needs of society over their personal benefit. The idea of letting labour unions pick who should set labour regulations is like asking the fox to guard the henhouse. 

I agree, but the labour minister couldn't pass anything except in concert with others, which is where the clash of interests would play out.

9 minutes ago, TimG said:

Democracy has one virtue which makes it better: is possible to peacefully dismiss the people in charge and replace them with new people with new ideas. We saw that when Trudeau took over and now we are seeing it with Trump. That does not mean the new ideas will necessarily be better. Just that there is a peaceful means clean house.

You can dismiss the council as well, and their replacements would presumably choose smarter candidates in future.

[Argus]

Just now, Michael Hardner said:

Too cynical.  I can't accept the idea that politics is a sham, or I wouldn't be here.

Too cynical? Too realistic, you mean. Politics, for most politicians, seems to be finding out where the parade is going so you can run around and jump out in front of it. That's especially so of Liberals. While the NDP and Conservatives have some fairly core beliefs the Liberals really only have whatever is popular at the polls this year.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok, well.... maybe we just wait for them to be elected then ?  Anyway, it's your idea and I like it is all.

[SunnysideTroll]

On 2016-12-09 at 7:37 AM, Michael Hardner said:

http://www.torontosun.com/2016/11/30/8-billion-and-14-years-later-ehealth-has-yet-to-finish-the-job

That is not to say people are stupid, but rather disinterested. 

Sometimes, it's the leaders who seem stupid or disinterested. 

In the US, polls consistently show that the overwhelming majority of Americans want GMOs to be labelled; and yet, on July 29th, 2016, President Obama went ahead and signed Monsanto's DARK Act anyway. -- @ livingmaxwell.com/obama-signs-gmo-labeling-bill-betrayal-organic  Some say democracy died that day.  I wonder if Canada can be far behind.

"Any politician or scientist who tells you these [GMO] products are safe is either very stupid or lying." -- Dr. David Suzuki, host of CBC's 'The Nature of Things'

Edited December 27, 2016 by SunnysideTroll
tried to fix link