There's problems either way you do it. On the one hand, having every candidate on the ballot sounds like you're giving the people greater options and a more representative Government. On the other hand, you end up with elections where your new President won with like 14% of the vote and who isn't even the second or third favorite of the other 86%. So you're going to need run offs if you want an actual representative Gov't. More than 5 candidates or so, and you're going to need multiple run offs. If you're running three or four sets of run offs, I think you'll find that 90% of the time, the final contenders are from the same 2-3 parties anyway, and you've added a bunch of confusing extra steps to get the same end result. Every run off is a chance for some scandal, crisis or debate to make people change their minds and regret the loss of somebody eliminated, too.
You can do ranked voting to avoid run offs- instead of voting for your guy, you vote for your number 1 guy, number 2 guy, and so on, with rankings being worth a number of points equal to the inverse of their rank (if there are 10 candidates, #1 is worth 10 points and #10 is worth 1 point per vote), but then you get people doing 'strategic' voting where they put the guy they think has the best chance at beating their favorite at #10 and the guy they think has no chance at #2, and next thing you know you've got president Q*bert of the Raelian party running the show.
You also have to consider the stupidity of the electorate. If you have people write their candidates, how many ballots do you think will be wasted because they voted for somebody who isn't eligible (foreign citizen, incumbent on his max terms, dead, fictional, etc). I think it's an open question as to what's more representative; telling people to pick either A or B, or telling them to write whatever letter they want, then throwing their ballot in the trash if they pick '7 'or '@'.
It's important to note that political parties aren't mentioned in the Constitution at all, they are just a thing that happened, and there has almost always been exactly 2 (relevant) parties in the U.S. So what we're looking at is how things shook out when free speech was left to it's own devices. Not saying it's good or bad, but something to think about.
Oh yeah, good point.
We had problems like that back when we had a 5 party system.
Here is something rough that i have in the mind-
-
Increase either voting age upto 40 or use some other way of filtering wise voters like a post graduate degree or even a saperate exam to become a voter.
-
Increase candidate age up to 50 and make it compulsory for them to be either a post graduate or clear a exam, specifically designed for the purpose of checking their knowledge and wisdom regarding those political and administrative challenges, that any candidate would have to face, if elected.
-
Make voting compulsory and through net also as to make easier for the voters.
-
Introduce weighted and negative voting also to find out the real winner.
Means, a voter can vote either in favor or opposition of either one or all candidates and he also has to grade them on the scale of 1-10, positively and negatively. -
No individual campaining or rallies should be allowed. Instead of that, all candidates should be asked to post their manifesto on the website of Election Commission. Furthermore, they can be given some equal TV time, sponsered by the government. Voters can read, see and judge their candidates on that.
-
Dismentle party system. Each and every candidate should fight on their own.
-
Choose president, state governers and all state and federal ministers by direct voting. That would be the main governing body, which would run day to day affairs of the state and federal governments.
-
Choosing ministers directly means that candidates for a particular ministery would have to declare that in their nominatiion and voters would vote for those directly.
Make strict rules for the candidates for ministers. Like, a candidate for finance minister must have post graduation degree in economics and a decade of working experience in the same field. It should not be the case that a president may appoint such a person as his finance minister, who earned his all degrees in botany; horses for courses.
- Form and elect a counter checking system in the form of sages/senators to keep an eye on the government. Age limit should be 60 here. They should not intervene in day to day affairs of the govenment but only either in the case of dispute within government or any other extraordinary circumstances. But, their verdict should be binding on the government. This body may also act as advisory to the government and may bring different issues to its notice.
There is no need for many persons in that forum. Something to the tune of 10 or 20 would be suffficient, each for every state and federal government. All retire chief justices, chief sectaries and head of state polices may be also added to this forum. There is no need to give too much facility or salary to senators, but just enough to live an ordinary life. Do not make it an attrative option moneywise.
-
Any person, once elected for the senate, should never to entitled to contest for any post in the government. Though, ministers of the government may contest for senate, after retiring from the government.
-
Senate should have the authority to dismiss and reelection for any minister, governor or even president at any time, if it finds any valid reasons.
-
There is no need to elect local representatives. Government officials should appoint to do the job.
-
Bring Right to information to all govenment departments, ecxcept very sensitive issues.
-
Bring Charter to Citizen and make respective officials accontable strictly.
-
Bring a complain system to the lowest level of the governence. Complain department should not be under govenment, but report to the senate only.
-
Change judicial system by minimising the laws and thus removing the need of lawyers.
Police can bring the culprit to the court directly. A judge, on his own, can decide the case on the merits and evidences and the testimonies of police and culprict. No need of prosecution and defence lawers. Convert law degree holders into judges, instead of lawyers as that would the speed of the justice manytimes.
In the same way, in the case of dispute of two individuals, anyone can approach the police or court directly. Aggrieved party (including police and state) may be allowed to second hearing by a three menber bench.
This is merely a broader framework and requires detaling.
with love,
sanjay
I have issues with only senior leaders and those that can afford such degrees come from wealthier families. You would not be representing the young and poor. If you give full paid state education to the poor that are inclined it could give a better balance on that. The younger people of 25 and up are more in touch with what their world is and is becoming. They are also less inclined to be burned out on life and new ways.
Kris,
I missed point no. 17. Here it is-
- All education and medical facility should be state sponsored. Means, that there will be no private educational and medical institutes, but public only and free to all.
But, i strongly oppose the concept of allowing voting to all. Only worthy should be allowed.
with love,
sanjay
I understand your point but, it will bring about disgruntlement and rebellion will follow. It would also eventually bring about second class prejudice laws, housing, education, breeding, career and opportunities.
When you remove the voice of so many you are creating future problems often severe ones.
Democracy. An oligarchical system where your vote doesn’t matter jack shit.
We do however get the security blanket of the delusion of freedom every night. Also pronounced as free-dumb.
They hate us for our free-dumbs.
My damned, stupid, Essential Tremor, fingers–doing their own thing–have caused me to lose so much. Uccisore, I’ve lost all 4 paragraphs of my reply to you, as a result. I’ve tried to recover it, but can’t.
I’ll try to re-write it tomorrow.
Thank you for your patience.
Kris,
Would you like to explain how this create second class citizen?
Right now, youngs below 18 are not allowed to vote. So, do we treat them as second class citizen?
This has nothing to do with creating some elite class, though one may get that kind of impression from that.
You cannot hand over knife to unskilled person unless he is either profession butcher, shef or docter.
A knife can save a life in the hands of a doctor but also can take a life if handed over to an amature.
In democracy, power to vote is very powerful tool and decides its course, thus it is necessary that it should be used wisely.
Furthermore, i also proposed an alternative method of becoming a voter by conducting a specific exam. So, worthy people can join the group, irrespective of their age. And, i did not propose any extra incentive for voters, except of voting power.
It is just like age limit for driving licence, smoking, drinking, sex and marriage etc.
It is not discrimination.
If we can have some eligibility critaria for the post of even a peon, why not for such a person who can inderectly affect all policy making of a country?
In all major democracies, generally half of the voters do not care to vote. It means, half of the citizen do not give any importance what is going around. Thus, it is merely a myth that filtering of voters would create any serious agitation.
Like, every US citizen knows that US government spies on him and even US authorities accepted it openly.
Does that caused any rebellion?
with love,
sanjay
Democracy can be described as two men pointing guns at each other’s heads. A dictatorship is a man pointing a gun at another man’s head and that other man, on his knees, begging to have his life spared. In a democracy, you get a stand off… at least, that’s what it’s supposed to be; the sad reality that I’m finding, however, is that democracy has become one man pointing a gun at another man’s head and that other man, having put down his gun, tells himself that the first man would never do anything to hurt him, so why be on your guard? He has forgotten that the whole reason nobody’s getting shot is because of the stand off created by two guns. He has fallen for the illusion that nobody’s getting shot because we’re all one big happy family of love and kindness and we’re all just so damn trustworthy that we don’t need guns. It’s James’s frog-in-boiling-water and your free-dumb.
Take your time,I know how much that sucks.
Democracy isn’t a systemic oligarchy, it just does nothing to protect itself from natural oligarchy.
This is propelled by the fact that the people telling us we don't need guns and that we're all one big happy family tend to be the people who are benefitting from the oligarchy and loss of freedoms in the first place. People are pushing for a greater systemic freedom because their powerbase is outside the system and they don't want to be challengable.
Uccisore wrote:
The US started with only 1 political party. There’s only been 1 political party several times in our history. And there used to be ranked voting: The #1 guy was declared President and the #2 became Vice-President, which makes sense to me, since #2 becomes president if #1 dies or is incapacitated. (Except for when Woodrow Wilson had a massive stroke during the third year of his second term. His wife, Edith, took over for him as Executive–before she could even vote!)
There was a time when the Founders considered having the Senate choose the President, but that was squelched, thank God, because of the fear of cronyism. I don’t think there’s ever been a run-off vote at the Federal level, although there may have been some at the state levels and certainly at county and city levels. We’ve even had a president who may have been born in Canada–Chester Arthur. All of which is beside the point, of course.
There are currently about 5 active, political parties in the US. I’d like to see representatives of some/all of those parties in the Legislature, is all. I don’t know that it would be possible, but it might be more representative of more of the people and it might lead to more voter turnout. Something to think about, anyway. I question the ‘stupidity’ of the electorate; I wonder how many more people would vote if there were more than 2 parties–and less money.
I had an idea, when I first joined ILP, about campaign financing. This may be the time and place to re-introduce it.
Put a cap on campaign financing and have all the money go into a general fund. Divide the money equally among all candidates. If a candidate drops out of the race before the vote, have the unspent money go back into the fund until the next election period. At the end of the voting, any unspent money would also go back into the fund. At the same time, limit the amount of time for campaign advertising.
Reform #2: Put a cap on campaign funding; put the money into a general fund used by all candidates equally; limit the amount of campaign time before an election. (Get rid of all those ‘yard signs’ that sprout up so soon and so often!)
I wish I knew enough about other ‘forms’ of democracy throughout the world, but I don’t. I do know, however, that any political system is closely bond to the economic system of a country, just as economics has been a part of philosophy for generations. If education is needed, it seems to me it would benefit the electorate to learn about economic theory beyond the ‘classical’ Adam Smith economics that’s often taught in schools. Economy funds government.
The EU and NAFTA created ‘free trade’ in Europe and the Americas, but most people don’t really know what that means. So…
Reform #3: Teach people economic theory and how it works hand in hand with political theory. This includes aspiring politicians. The electorate shouldn’t look just at a political party when there is so much more to governance.
Increasing the age up to 40 changes the dynamic, I’ll agree, but they are just as likely to vote themselves money from the treasury as anyone else. A 40 year old has less interest in the future, that is our current problem with the baby boomers. In the words of William F Buckley Jr.: “I would rather be governed by the first 2000 people in the Manhattan phone book than the entire faculty of Harvard.” A post graduate degree does not guarantee wisdom, I usually just means an over-educated fool, often as not a child that has played on the playground for to long. I could get in on the exam Idea, except it would stop the illiterate from voting, which are usually the poor, and they have every right, and reason to care about the country. Restrictions most people want are ones they would qualify for, usually because they believe they are smart and those that disagree are dumb, that they just haven’t be taught right. Should we restrict it to only people who don’t want gun control laws? Cuz that’s what I want… 
The reason voting was originally restricted to White, landowners was for the same reasons and thoughts you are attempting to get across, it didn’t help then, it won’t now.
Much the same problem as above. Though I do admit, that increasing the candidate age appeals to me. 35 is a arbitrary value based on the time frames of life at the time, I could let that go.
Forcing people that don’t care does not increase the likely-hood they are going to be informed voters. In fact, it would have the opposite effect. More people voting that care more about American Idol voting that government voting.
While interesting it won’t change any real dynamic.
So that only the people that really care and are interested are informed, rather than attempting to inform as many people as possible, regardless of how limited that information might be. Sounds good, but I imagine it just results in more misinformation flying around. Additionally, what constitutes equal time on TV (and other media), do you count all the talk shows on sunday morning? What about the radio programs? 24 hour news? Do we have to have a special group of men and women, of select amounts, with political views of equal amount, on every view point, that sit in a room and judge what is and isn’t information of a positive or negative nature, on every media? The result of attempting to control the power is going to be the perversion of that power. In such a committee, the people that run it are going to have political opinions, just like everyone else, and they will sway things, just like everything else.
But, then like minded individuals get together possibly one with a track record to back up them saying, I would vote for my friend here, and so should you! The party system happened naturally, it’s not in the Constitution, as Ucc pointed out. Much like money and middle men, these are going to happen. Sorry.
The result is all those people living in rural area’s are ignored. Presidents go to three big cities and say fuck everyone else… Just promise the city something to get the vote, get elected.
Education is not proof of wisdom, only that you are able to play within the education system. More it just transfers the power to educators that get to declare that one candidate is better based on these tests that I wrote. Money and favors will still exchange hands.
The counter checking system is what the three branches of government are for, to counter balance each other… I don’t think another one created as “sages” is going to help.
An old saying in economics, “you get what you pay for.” When you pay nothing for something it is by that very action worth nothing. The people that are going to do well, well be worth more. Alternately you just attract the people that are in it for the power, not the wealth.
One of our current problems is senators joining the private sector, with companies that they previously helped out with legislation. Working for the government sucks, especially the pay.
Giving more power to the senate, which will mean that any minister, governor or president cow toes to them instead of the people that elected them.
Taking more power out of the local government and putting it in national hands… Pass, personally, I think this is just the opposite of what needs to happen. The federal government has taken to much power for itself, often in the form of taxes.
Who decides what is very sensitive, you’ll find they are the ones that start keeping unnecessary secrets…
I don’t understand, please explain further.
The senate is part of the government. Plus, this is what voting is supposed to do. I doubt that more government programs is going to fix the problems with government.
I won’t say 16 just won’t work, but I think we need to understand the problems with our current system better, before we set up a new one. That and, I’m actually woefully under informed on the court system, IMHO and do not feel comfortable with arguing with you on it.
You know, I was given a lifetime membership to the NRA as a child, and I’ve got guns all over my apartment. That being said, no matter how hard I try and think about it, I just can picture myself as a “well organized militia” here sitting by myself, and I can’t imagine what I’d say if they restricted me all the way down to a single shot .22 rifle. I mean, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”, just doesn’t really seem to apply to me as an individual at all. I don’t think it’s the anti-gun lobby that wants to change the constitution to suit their interests. It may be the other way around. Am I a well organized militia? Should I be allowed to own 37 guns? I think answering those questions “yes” is like trying to stuff something into the constitution that isn’t there. I mean technically a knife could be considered “arms”. So why can’t we take all the guns away from all the people who aren’t in a well organized militia and just let the ones who are in a well organized militia use knives?
The Era of Good Feelings was the last time, and it didn't even last a generation. It's certainly not the norm, however- there has been (effectively) one party about as much as there has been three, and there has been four or more basically never.
It makes a certain amount of sense, but since the VP does basically nothing while the president is alive, I don't really see that it would make much difference.
Then they need to get a majority of the votes in their state or district. It's not like there's never been a Green or Reform party congressman before.
So people would be donating money to 'the idea of campaigning' in general, and not to a particular candidate? So the state would be declaring, by fiat, that the candidates from each party get equal representation regardless of how much popular support they actually have? Sure, if you're a member of a fringe/minority political ideology you would love this idea because your guy is bound to get more funding. But I don't see what it helps.
Besides, you have to consider the amount of third party/unofficial donations. Here's what would happen: nobody would donate to your 'everybody gets a slice' fund, because nobody wants to spend money to support every candidate equally. Instead, people would donate to superpacs and 501c groups that would create independent 'issues' commercials that would promote a particular stance, a particular issue, or criticize a particular candidate or candidates, without being a part of the official campaign. There would be no way to restrict this if you still want a 1st Amendment.
And bare in mind, we already have that 'would you like to donate 5 dollars to the presidential election fund" box on our tax returns.
If you taught economic theory fairly, the Democratic party would lose most of their membership instantly. Unless, of course, the democrats already had a hegemony of control in the schools, which they do, and then the students wouldn’t be taught economics, they’d be taught marxism.
What do you mean by this? Which people are you talking about? They benefit from loss of freedom? And at the same time, they’re pushing for greater systemic freedom? I don’t understand?
I think that’s a decent compromise.
So if someone wants to fund a certain campaign, they have to fund all other campaigns equally?
What do you predict this will do?
Yes, this is the point you were making earlier, isn’t it? I think it’s pretty insightful.
Good point.
I’ve always been somewhat against the right-to-bear-arms provision (just as an outside commentator, of course–citizens have no rights to bear arms in Canada unless you have a license), mainly on the grounds that it seems to contribute to a high crime rate, but this discussion has me rethinking this position. It seems the right to bear arms is serving a purpose that I didn’t think of: if the government ends up overstepping its grounds, attempting to transform the state into an oligarchy which uses coercion in order to subjugate the people, the people have something with which to defend themselves and restore democracy and their freedom. If that’s the intent behind the right-to-bear-arms proviso, then really what it says is: the people have a right to at least equal if not greater arms to the government. That is to say, the people have a right, in this day and age, to tanks, fighter jets, missile launchers, nuclear weapons, and anything else equivalent to what the government would use on the people should they attempt to take power by force.
Three theories on how leaders become corrupt:
1) The Conditioned Psychopath Theory:
This one’s from the OP of my other thread: Are all politicians corrupt?
2) The Appeasing the Majority Theory:
This one would apply to dictators of foreign cultures whom we would judge as being corrupt because of a misconception of what it is to be a leader in that culture.
I can’t think of any specific real-life examples off the top of my head, but I’m thinking of cases in which certain minorities or groups of people are persecuted, tortured, or put to death by a dictator because that’s what that culture’s own beliefs and value prescribe. A woman being unfaithful to her husband in a Muslim nation, for example. It may be the case that such a leader sanctions or orders such persecutions, not so much out of corruption or a sadistically cruel mentality, but because he is trying to appease what the majority thinks ought to happen anyway. In such a culture, the majority may very well rise up against such a dictator if he didn’t take such draconian measures. It might be like, in our culture, a leader (let’s say Obama) pardoning a rapist serial killer and setting him free from imprisonment or capital punishment. Would the people just sit idly and say “Oh, thank God we have a leader who doesn’t believe in punishing people for what we believe to be a crime and a moral transgression”? I don’t think so. If one of our leaders ever did that, I think we’d call for his impeachment.
Of course, this theory only applies to a very limited range of examples. Tons of others examples exist in which dictators commit human rights violations that not even his own people can stomach.
3) The Self-Defense Theory:
Putting ourselves back into the shoes of a tyrannical dictator, I can imagine that such harsh measures as torturing and exterminating certain minorities or groups of people might be done, not so much out of cruelty, but fear and panic. In most countries around the world in which a dictator rules, you don’t sit there and reason with the dictator about how to treat the people fairly, and you don’t just say “please, please, pretty please stop violating so many human rights.” Most of the time, the way out from under the dictators brutal thumb is to overthrow him, cut off his head, preform a coup d’etat. It occurs to me then that such atrocious acts as mass torture and whole group exterminations are probably acts of panic and self-defense–that is to say, acts whose purpose is to prevent the same being done unto the dictator (if I, as dictator, don’t exterminate this group, they will exterminate me). It’s the only foreseeable measure for preserving not only the dictator’s power, but his life.
Now, in most cases, I would predict that all three theories are, in one way or another, true–perhaps one or two moreso than the other(s)–but certain implications do follow depending on which one is (more) true, implications for the stand-off image I rendered 2 posts ago (again, that democracy is two men pointing guns at each other’s heads): theories 2) and 3), if true, would predict that, at least in a relatively peaceful sociopolitical climate (like in most Western countries), it would be OK for the one man (i.e. the people) to put down his gun. If the only reason for one to point a gun at another’s head is because that’s what one’s culture says you do, then in most Western cultures, that’s not really what it’s said that you do. Most Western cultures don’t say that certain minorities or groups of people ought to be tortured or put to death if they fail to observe certain religious or endogenous practices (murderers, rapists, and other such heinous criminals might count as an exception to this). So if that’s not what our cultures say, the government would not feel compelled to do it (at least, according to theory #2). And if the only reason for one to point a gun at another’s head is because, if he didn’t, the other man surely would (and then pull the trigger), then it may be safe to assume, in Western countries (where, again, the sociopolitical climate is relatively peaceful) that the government would put it’s guns down (i.e. wouldn’t torture the people or violate their rights and freedoms) insofar as it could be assured that we, the people, have or will put our guns down (i.e. we won’t needlessly revolt).
But it’s theory #1 that we have to take seriously and which I place my bets on. If theory #1 is right, then we need to keep our guns raised high such that the government is always reminded that severe consequences will follow any moral or legal transgressions, or any neglect of what members of the government were elected or paid to do. Only by being threatened with consequences does the government avoid becoming corrupt.
Democracy equals tyranny by a majority of idiots that are easily swayed by an oligarchical minority that really controls everything out of plain sight. Perfect organization of tyranny especially when you have the majority of idiots believing that slavery is freedom.
Fuck your so called democracy or demo-crazy.