It has struck me that representative democracy, the 'best' form of government hitherto developed, has many flaws. Groups of individual and unique human beings are asked to hand decisions that apply to the masses as a whole to their desired representative. To practice true democracy would be anarchic and mired in infinitely wasteful bureacracy. However, an elected representative of any individual person can make extremely important decisions on two distinct and separate issues, one where you support their decision and one where you vehemently oppose it. The representative is no longer 'representative' as it were. What is the next step in the political evolution of democracy? Can we rectify this somehow? Should there at least be some greater level of reversion to the public (on particular policy areas perhaps)? Discuss.
Great question. Can't answer now, just wanted to say I think it's going to be the big question of the 21st century.
I'm not sure that we can, other than altering the balance (e.g. forcing referendums on big issues).
One thing politicians should be required before getting to power or getting elected is to sign some kind of contract where he/she accepts to work in the best interests of the citizens that voted for him/her, and if they don't do what they promised then they should be removed. For instance, your elected representative promised to get lower taxes and then he votes to increase taxes, he's out.
How do you prove that they aren't altering their stance because of new information?
They must prove it then.ZombieVampire! wrote:
How do you prove that they aren't altering their stance because of new information?
How?
Their problem. They should explain how "this new info" changed their minds at least.ZombieVampire! wrote:
How?
And you don't think they'll find a way?
How do you define prove? How do you do this without hamstringing government?
How do you define prove? How do you do this without hamstringing government?
Switzerland seems to have it pegged pretty well.
Fuck Israel
Bubs, if I knew the answer to those questions I wouldn't be working.ZombieVampire! wrote:
And you don't think they'll find a way?
How do you define prove? How do you do this without hamstringing government?
Improvements?
End politics as a means of obtaining personal power and privilage.
-End Term Limits
-End job perquisets
-Get political families (Kennedy and Bush, for example) out of office and leave them there.
Rein in political bodies overstepping their bounds (Judges legislating from the bench).
Get rid of the systems that allow pork barrel spending.
End politics as a means to forward "your" personal or religious beliefs.
Simplify the tax code to end the power of lobbyists.
I think that could work no matter what political persuation you are. I have lots of others, but they are tied to my political belief system, and so are less 'universal.'
End entitlement spending.
Reducing the size of government.
Reducing goverments power in order to end public reliance on the governmet for help in non-governmetal areas.
See what I mean?
[edited for spelling]
Second Edit: I do not think you can find the 'perfect' solution to the problem of government, because there are too many people with a different idea of what a 'better' system would be. First you have to define what better is, and who it is better for.
End politics as a means of obtaining personal power and privilage.
-End Term Limits
-End job perquisets
-Get political families (Kennedy and Bush, for example) out of office and leave them there.
Rein in political bodies overstepping their bounds (Judges legislating from the bench).
Get rid of the systems that allow pork barrel spending.
End politics as a means to forward "your" personal or religious beliefs.
Simplify the tax code to end the power of lobbyists.
I think that could work no matter what political persuation you are. I have lots of others, but they are tied to my political belief system, and so are less 'universal.'
End entitlement spending.
Reducing the size of government.
Reducing goverments power in order to end public reliance on the governmet for help in non-governmetal areas.
See what I mean?
[edited for spelling]
Second Edit: I do not think you can find the 'perfect' solution to the problem of government, because there are too many people with a different idea of what a 'better' system would be. First you have to define what better is, and who it is better for.
Last edited by imortal (2008-05-28 06:06:44)
You assume they have answers.
I assume they should have answers.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You assume they have answers.
Last edited by sergeriver (2008-05-28 05:58:34)
Here's an interesting idea. From what I can figure out it's an idea to allow the the masses of the population to have the right to create new laws, providing (in the American case) that they are constitutional. This means that if the masses want a new law, they don't need to care if the government wants it or not it just has to be constitutional and wanted by the masses.
No, you're saying that's how you solve it, but you can't state the specifics, assuming that there's a way to make the specifics work.sergeriver wrote:
I assume they should have answers.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You assume they have answers.
the current electoral system rewards panderers and liars, not people who tell the truth, which many don't want to hear.
if that can be fixed, the system will work infinitely better.
Also, our media focuses too much on the private lives of our politicians, with flaws not related to politics in any way often costing a candidate dearly.
if that can be fixed, the system will work infinitely better.
Also, our media focuses too much on the private lives of our politicians, with flaws not related to politics in any way often costing a candidate dearly.
ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, you're saying that's how you solve it, but you can't state the specifics, assuming that there's a way to make the specifics work.sergeriver wrote:
I assume they should have answers.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You assume they have answers.
I never said this thing alone would solve anything. I think they should be required to sign some sort of contract. Not that a contract will solve the whole matter. Again, if I knew all the answers to those questions I wouldn't be working.sergeriver wrote:
One thing politicians should be required before getting to power or getting elected is to sign some kind of contract where he/she accepts to work in the best interests of the citizens that voted for him/her, and if they don't do what they promised then they should be removed. For instance, your elected representative promised to get lower taxes and then he votes to increase taxes, he's out.
Give more power to regional governments.
Make terms considerably shorter.
Smaller, more flexible governments.
Reduce politicians' benefits.
Conduct more referendums on serious matters.
Decentralize the population - create small, virtually self-governed communities.
Focus on the political education of the people.
Do not allow for career politicians.
Disperse the current party system.
Minimize the representatives, maximize citizens' involvement in the commons.
Make terms considerably shorter.
Smaller, more flexible governments.
Reduce politicians' benefits.
Conduct more referendums on serious matters.
Decentralize the population - create small, virtually self-governed communities.
Focus on the political education of the people.
Do not allow for career politicians.
Disperse the current party system.
Minimize the representatives, maximize citizens' involvement in the commons.
ƒ³
well, I guess the solution to the problem you described would be to hold more referendums, as the Swiss do. This would maybe help bring the electorate and the representatives more closely together.
Also, if it were up to me, I'd get ridd off political parties. Sounds crazy, but let's face it, having to vote along party lines is the worst that could have happened to democracy. Without political parties, the elected representatives of any constituency would not have to worry about what their party thinks, or about party politics. Their only job would be to follow the will of their constituents, i.e. the people who put them in office.
By keeping in touch with his / her constituents, it would be considerably easy for any representative to get an idea of what the people who elected him/her think about any particular issue, and vote accordingly in parliament.
this would make the indirect democracy more direct, if you will.
Generally, though, I dont think there is a way around having representatives. More referendums are a good thing, but their effectiveness is limited to issues that the general public is competent enough to decide.
Political education is also major in that regard. The success of any form of democracy is directly connected to the will of the individual citizen to take part in the political process, and his/her knowledge of it.
Also, if it were up to me, I'd get ridd off political parties. Sounds crazy, but let's face it, having to vote along party lines is the worst that could have happened to democracy. Without political parties, the elected representatives of any constituency would not have to worry about what their party thinks, or about party politics. Their only job would be to follow the will of their constituents, i.e. the people who put them in office.
By keeping in touch with his / her constituents, it would be considerably easy for any representative to get an idea of what the people who elected him/her think about any particular issue, and vote accordingly in parliament.
this would make the indirect democracy more direct, if you will.
Generally, though, I dont think there is a way around having representatives. More referendums are a good thing, but their effectiveness is limited to issues that the general public is competent enough to decide.
Political education is also major in that regard. The success of any form of democracy is directly connected to the will of the individual citizen to take part in the political process, and his/her knowledge of it.
Yeah we can, it's called direct democracy.
We barely ever get anything done because we vote on everything. If we weren't neutral, we'd be screwed.Dilbert_X wrote:
Switzerland seems to have it pegged pretty well.
-konfusion
Greater accountability would be the place to start. People in positions of power should be given harsher penalties when committing crime and corruption. Unfortunately it is usually the opposite case. Whenever your decisions effect a great many people your expectations should be higher. That's the price you pay.
In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?
In the absence of justice, what is sovereignty but organized robbery?
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I think people need to stop voting for the mainstream candidates and parties just because "they feel like voting" despite the fact they don't much about politics. People need to use common sense when voting.
"you know life is what we make it, and a chance is like a picture, it'd be nice if you just take it"
You're all wasting your breath.
We ain't smart enough as a species to solve these problems.
Hell, we ain't smart enough not to shit in our own nest.
Monkeys with cars.
We ain't smart enough as a species to solve these problems.
Hell, we ain't smart enough not to shit in our own nest.
Monkeys with cars.