Designing a better Democracy

[North King]

The main problem of having everyone vote on every issue are things like budget. They're not really a yes or no proposal; you have to make it somehow or other. We could implement a governing council elected by lot for this, or something else.

 

[Elrohir]

There is a better government option: Elronarchy, Rule by the One Elrohir. Basically, it's where the guy who has the screenname Elrohir on CFC becomes ruler of the Earth and everyone has to obey him, no matter what he says. And since he'll probably start nerve-stapling everyone and binding them to his will pretty soon, no one will disagree, as they won't be able to.

Yes, a government with me in charge would seriously rock.


All joking aside, any institution created and run by imperfect humans is going to be imperfect. Perfection cannot be created out of imperfection. (Hear that Perf? ) It is unrealistic to expect any human government to be perfect or completely just. We can only do the best that we can with what we have, and move on.

 

[Cuivienen]

How about, rather than holding elections en masse, stagger them throughout the year. Say on January 2nd (so as not for it to fall on New Year's Day), 1/48 of all the electoral districts hold their elections. Then on January 15th another 1/48th hold elections, and on February 1st another 1/48th hold elections. Continue so that an election has been held in every district by January 1st two years later. In this way, there is no national election campaign; political parties can't make broad, general promises since some of the party will be up for reelection half a month later.

It would work better in Westminster systems than Washington systems, but works well enough in both. Obviously it doesn't work at all for PR systems.

 

[The Yankee]

But then...what if campaigning happens or something is revealed after some people have already cast their votes?

Thing is, as Elrohir pointed out, everything we do create will have flaws. We would need to find out what kind of flaws are more acceptable than others and go with that. Because we're all human and there are too many strings pulling those at the top.

Unless you meant Congressional elections...it would make more sense to do it that way. Or at least have the House staggered like the Senate.

 

[North King]

How about, rather than holding elections en masse, stagger them throughout the year. Say on January 2nd (so as not for it to fall on New Year's Day), 1/48 of all the electoral districts hold their elections. Then on January 15th another 1/48th hold elections, and on February 1st another 1/48th hold elections. Continue so that an election has been held in every district by January 1st two years later. In this way, there is no national election campaign; political parties can't make broad, general promises since some of the party will be up for reelection half a month later.

It would work better in Westminster systems than Washington systems, but works well enough in both. Obviously it doesn't work at all for PR systems.

There is a problem with this that we saw in the Democratic primaries of '04: cascade voting. If one party garners enough votes, it seems hopeless to vote for the others, so eventually the larger party will just start carrying a large majority, larger than it should be, number wise. Of course, there's probably a way to neutralize this, but, it is still a problem that would have to be solved for this kind of system to work.

 

[Cuivienen]

Unless you meant Congressional elections...it would make more sense to do it that way. Or at least have the House staggered like the Senate.

That's what I meant; that's why it works better for Westminster systems.

 

[The Yankee]

There'd be neverending elections....I'm not sure if it's a good idea or not, but you may be right in that it might prevent a grand, party, monolithic theme for the Congressional elections.

 

[Cuivienen]

Neverending only a national sense. Bear in mind that any person in particular would not have to vote more than once every two years. You could also cut down campaign lengths by mandating that campaigns not start in a given congressional district about to hold an election until the previous set of elections has occurred; many countries do fine with strict one-month campaign periods, so half-month periods wouldn't be a real problem.

 

[The Yankee]

Would the Supreme Court strike that down, though? Just like money was considered free speech.

 

[Rik Meleet]

A different way to organise this is to have seperate elections for Policies and people. You vote on a sort of middle-term-constitution (say 25 years) to decide the long term goals of the country / planet.
Besides that you vote on the face you want to see on TV. The elected politicians cannot make laws that aren't in line with the long-term policies. Same principle as that laws now cannot be made when they aren't in line with the constitution.

 

[Steph]

I'd say the main answer is to elect leader for longer terms- say 8 years insteadof 4, and a maximum of 2 terms, meaning that a person could in thoery hold office for 16 years.

The French president used to be elected to 7 years. We reduced it to 5...
What happens if the president get sick? Does do what he promised during his campaign? Or an external events (terrorist attack, economic crisis) change the deal and he's no longer the best one for the job?

 

[Steph]

The first thing is to play by the rules.
When the elections are other, we have to accept the result and let the government does his job until the next election.
We should not interfer (I speak specifically of French here) with the attempts.
Like going on strike any time a new measure is proposed. We should let it run for a time. If it doesn't work, vote for another government in the next election if you feel like.

A second possibility would be to vote for a government and a program.
That's already what we do... Except it's a take it all or leave it all system.
The idea is:
1) First election to select a government based on his general ideas/ program
2) When the government is elected, second election to define priority:
- Unemployement
- Security
- Ecology...
That could guide the main effort of the government.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Steph: What if the majority agrees with 40% of the ideas of party A, 30% of that of party B, 20% of that of Party C and 10% of that of party D ?
"Winner takes all" or "Take it all or leave it all" is not the most democratic system. At least not as much as "Vote for long-term policies 1 by 1".

 

[Steph]

Steph: What if the majority agrees with 40% of the ideas of party A, 30% of that of party B, 20% of that of Party C and 10% of that of party D ?
"Winner takes all" or "Take it all or leave it all" is not the most democratic system. At least not as much as "Vote for long-term policies 1 by 1".

There are two different issues.
- Select who will seat in the government
- Select with policy they should govern

Can they both be solved with only one election? I agree winner takes all is not very good. But that's how we work currently: If party A and party B have different ideas and party A is elected, party B ideas are out (except in case such as the recent German election where they have to ally). Is there really a way to avoid it?
Beside voting individually for the ministers? Individuals would run for a specific post, and we vote for a government a la carte.
I want John Rambo as Defense Minister, Britney Spears as culture minister, Arlette Laguiller for Economy, Ally Burton for ecology, Hal Kapon for justice, etc.

 

[Winner]

Democracy is failing from one reason - people are too stupid to mantain it. Large majority of people simply isn't qualified to vote, because they don't know what are they voting for. They're making decision without the necessary information - they don't get it because they are too lazy or stupid to get it.

My solution - citizenship tests. Let vote just those who are intelligent/educated enough to pass it. The rest would still have all the rights citizens have, except the right to vote. This would not be open to change to ensure no dictatorship of the educated minority could happen.

This system would lead to elimination of the populist parties and bring reasonable politicians in charge. It would greatly improve the capabilities of our governments.

 

[Rik Meleet]

And how will limiting the electorate positively influence long term policies ? The elected ones will still focus on the short term only.

 

[Steph]

That's why I insist on letting the government do his job.
If the government says retirement age has to be 60.5 and not 60, it's because they made complex calculation and projection to find it.
People should not go on strike just because they think it should be 60.4545 and not 60.785.
All the citizens should vote on general concept. Not enter the details.

That was the big mistake of the European "constiution"
The document should have been a lot simplier, (20 pages max) and state the general principles.
And all the details should have been settled by the parliaments.

 

[Steph]

I have a good solution...
Several people can contest for different position.
Then we put them in front of a simulator, and the one with the best score get the job.
The defense minister must win a conquest Civ game.
The culture minister must win a cultural civ game.
The foreign minsiter must win through UN, etc.

 

[Steph]

Neverending only a national sense. Bear in mind that any person in particular would not have to vote more than once every two years. You could also cut down campaign lengths by mandating that campaigns not start in a given congressional district about to hold an election until the previous set of elections has occurred; many countries do fine with strict one-month campaign periods, so half-month periods wouldn't be a real problem.

The problem with your system is the government will have even more to worry about short terms policies, because they ALWAYS have someone to please.
I prefer a system where we elect a government for a period of time (let say 5 years), and do not interfere with their governing until just before the campaign. The problem is the constant fighting between everybody

 

[Winner]

And how will limiting the electorate positively influence long term policies ? The elected ones will still focus on the short term only.

More educated voters will be more of a challenge for the politicians. They are not so easily fooled, they want better results and they remember their mistakes.