Designing a better Democracy

[EdwardTking]

Voting is an opportunity to exercise "judgement".

And judgement should not be confused with education,
and education should not be confused with intelligence.

And practical streetwise commonsense has nothing to do with
having the most doctorates or other qualifications etc for
which the most significant factor is often wealthy parents.

 

[betazed]

And judgement should not be confused with education,

But a correlation is reasonable to assume.

and education should not be confused with intelligence.

Another correlation reasonable to assume.

And practical streetwise commonsense has nothing to do with
having the most doctorates or other qualifications etc for
which the most significant factor is often wealthy parents.

And practical streetwise commonsense is a pitiful tool in making long term strategic decisions.

 

[EdwardTking]

But a correlation is reasonable to assume.

Another correlation reasonable to assume.

I don't believe in disenfranchising current voters, merely on the basis
of a proven statistical correlation, let alone, an assumed correlation.

And practical streetwise commonsense is a pitiful tool in making long term strategic decisions.

A pitiful tool may be better than no tool.

Please advise me what "tools" our current
politicians use for making long term strategy.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Democracy can be redesigned in a very simple manner:

Step 1: Throw it all away.
Step 2: Keep it like that.

 

[betazed]

I don't believe in disenfranchising current voters,

But you would rather disenfranchise them out a better future?

A pitiful tool may be better than no tool.

Arguable.

Please advise me what "tools" our current politicians use for making
long term strategy.

Right now they use the tool "current expedient agenda that will help in next election".

How about a new tool that is "judicious thought based on the knowledge of educated people"? Which is what you "might" get if we pursue it. Is it not wortwhile checking out?

 

[ThePhysicist]

Hey now, you can't go disenfranchising the uneducated, they are the ones who need the government the most. They are the ones whom society is failing. Just because one is educated does not mean one is caring or good. Some of the smartest people in the world are self centered. You can't expect the educated to care for the uneducated just because they know better. Groups vote in their own best interest.

 

[Caprice]

I think the most important thing (from a U.S. perspective) is creating term limits for senators and representatives. The idea of "carreer politicians" is sickening to me, and seems to breed corruptness. Two terms is plenty, then get the heck out so someone else can have a turn at the drinking fountain.

Elsewise, I think that the job of President should be turned into two positions, one which deals with domestic policy, the other with foregn. The jobs are just too big now to be effectively done by one person (IMO).

I also think that a vote of "no confidence," or something similar, should be easy to employ against any official. 51% think so-and-so is crooked, an investigative committe should be set up to figure out why, if 75% think he's crooked, no questions asked- he's gone.

I'll try to churn up some more later...

 

[Winner]

Fair enough.

Now, who figures out who gets a vote and who doesn't?

Committee composed of leading academics creates basic rules for the exams. Everyone will have the exam in age of 18, those who pass will get the right to vote immediately, those who fail can either wait (and study) for several years and try again (with two attempts at maximum) or serve in armed forces for at least 10 years.

The test shouldn't be too difficult, because some of those who wouldn't pass it would be intelligent, educated and motivated enough to organize protests against this system. Of course, it can't be too easy either, because then it wouldn't have so big positive effect on the quality of democracy.

 

[EdwardTking]

Right now they use the tool "current expedient agenda that will help in next election".

I wish they did. That would mean thinking as far as 4 years ahead!

Unfortunately I think that most of the political leadership thinks
no further than tomorrows' press or next weeks committee hearings.

And very few Chef Executives seem to be able to think much beyond
a couple of years revenue forecasts and stock options earnings.

The problem with the intelligence and successful, and to a certain,
albeit lesser extent, educated people outside academic research is
that they tend to think, "I am intelligent, successful and educated;
so I don't have to plan, I can rely upon my abilities to get me out
of any difficulties when they crop up." And usually, this works well.

However there is no long term planning.

Less intelligent people know that to achieve they must plan, and
persevere. They are therefore often just as good at planning.

How about a new tool that is "judicious thought based on the knowledge of educated people"? Which is what you "might" get if we pursue it. Is it not wortwhile checking out?

Yes

 

[El_Machinae]

With regards to laws regarding morality, or perceived morality, I really wish that the voters were required to become fully informed regarding the issues they were voting for/against

Like I've said before; increasing transparancy of the government is the best way to keep them honest.

 

[The Yankee]

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.

Who certifies what is educated enough? How would you ensure that the process is not corrupted by politics?

This is just a different version of an earlier proposal here to give more votes to those who pass a test.

Finally, what is to stop an "educated" electorate from simply voting themselves into a kind of caste or nobility, even if it isn't in name? That isn't democracy at all.

 

[Winner]

Who certifies what is educated enough? How would you ensure that the process is not corrupted by politics?

Politics wouldn't have any influence there. Tests would be created by scientists and their application by the justice.

This is just a different version of an earlier proposal here to give more votes to those who pass a test.

Finally, what is to stop an "educated" electorate from simply voting themselves into a kind of caste or nobility, even if it isn't in name? That isn't democracy at all.

That is actually very easy. The rights of non-voting majority would be protected by the constitution, which could be changed only in referendum, where the usual non-voters would be allowed to cast their vote. Now, if they were so foolish to vote against their own rights, it would be possible, but I don't think people are that stupid.

(BTW, it would still be a democracy. In contemporary democracies, children aren't allowed to vote simply because we think they're not qualified. My proposed system would be just an extension of this rule.)

 

[Rik Meleet]

Not sure about that.. but in general the higher educated are the ones that make the participation in a democracy. It's the higher educated and their participant culture that make a democracy. The lower the education, the less participation. A big amount of the population does nothing more than vote: subject culture. And of course there's even the ones not voting at all, and even somewhat indiferent of the existence of a central government...parochial culture.

Is that a cause or a consequence of a not fully functioning Democracy? I think it's a consequence more than a cause. Lower educated citizens might spot (or assume) the futility of voting when voting doesn't lead to long-term education plans quicker than higher educated citizens - for instance.

 

[Fifty]

I'm a supporter of Stewart's Constitutional Robocracy

 

[The Yankee]

Politics wouldn't have any influence there. Tests would be created by scientists and their application by the justice.

Scientists can be politically motivated as well. We're all made up of people and people normally hold viewpoints, even if faint. I could not completely trust whoever these people are to make those choices.

That is actually very easy. The rights of non-voting majority would be protected by the constitution, which could be changed only in referendum, where the usual non-voters would be allowed to cast their vote. Now, if they were so foolish to vote against their own rights, it would be possible, but I don't think people are that stupid.

(BTW, it would still be a democracy. In contemporary democracies, children aren't allowed to vote simply because we think they're not qualified. My proposed system would be just an extension of this rule.)

The best argument is the comparison to children. However, it becomes a universal right at a certain age, no matter who you are (of course, there are restrictions to that, citizenship, location, a current convict may also be barred).

The constitutional argument...for one...would never pass right now anyway, I wouldn't think. So you'd have to get it in there before you could actually act with it.

Second, constitutions have been happily violated in many instances in many countries. It may take many years to effectively enforce protections of the minority (as protections of rights for blacks here have failed even with Constitutional authority).

Third, what would make these people, now stripped of their voting rights, any better to take part in a referendum. Weren't they too dumb to understand the issues before them before?

 

[Rik Meleet]

Clearly; excluding citizens from the process is not the way to go - if your goal is better Democracy. The way citizens participate needs to change. How can we make sure the long term policy gets the focus it needs?

 

[Darkness]

Why democracy sucks:

- The average voter doesn't have a clue what he's voting for, so everything becomes a popularity contest, in which competence, brains and political idealism become afterthoughts.

- The usual period in office (4 years, or 5 in other countries) is too short to make a real improvement, especially since most of the latter half of the period in office is spent trying to get popular again in an effort to get re-elected.

 

[ComradeDavo]

How about teaching kids about POLITICS!

That way people will have an understanding about how descions affect them, and thus this will be reflecting in their voting habits.

A couple of hours of politics classes a week for 10 - 16 year olds.

Then give the vote to 16 years olds.

That way, knowing that they will soon have a chance to excercise their democratic rights, and knowing about the system and about the different parties and ideals, hopefully they will excercise their right to vote. And starting at them at 16 is a good way of ensuring that they keep an intrest in 'politics'.

A healthy democracy is one where people vote, and know what they are voting for!

 

[Cuivienen]

- The usual period in office (4 years, or 5 in other countries) is too short to make a real improvement, especially since most of the latter half of the period in office is spent trying to get popular again in an effort to get re-elected.

One solution is to limit politicians to a single term in office. You could also extend that to be a single term in any (federal) elected office to prevent the House-Senate-VP-President progression.

 

[Kayak]

How about teaching kids about POLITICS!

That way people will have an understanding about how descions affect them, and thus this will be reflecting in their voting habits.

A couple of hours of politics classes a week for 10 - 16 year olds.

Then give the vote to 16 years olds.

That way, knowing that they will soon have a chance to excercise their democratic rights, and knowing about the system and about the different parties and ideals, hopefully they will excercise their right to vote. And starting at them at 16 is a good way of ensuring that they keep an intrest in 'politics'.

A healthy democracy is one where people vote, and know what they are voting for!

It's not just politics, it is history and current events too. When I have conversations with people, I am always amazed that so many do not have the historical background information to make an educated rational decision. Ditto for events in the news.

@Cuivienen, I don't think term limits are the answer. Too much knowledge is lost when there is high turnover in an institution. I would like to see massive campaign/money reform to make incumbents less secure. Along with greater transparency and somehow removing redistricting from political control.