Designing a better Democracy

[Whomp]

United States of America are fighting all over the World for it (the better democracy)!

"By heritage and by choice, the United States of America will make that stand." Jeorge W. Bush, 2002.

Do you disagree?

There must be a way to have a better political system. And we're going to design it.

The OP poster is from the Netherlands and I've seen posters from other democracies post their views so again I ask what does the United States have to do with it? The objective was to create a better democracy not a U.S. centric view of democracy.

 

[Abaddon]

Well i think there should be some way to make the politicians responsible for what happens to their policys.. Its fine makeing these big 10 year plans, when you know your not going to be in power to see its outcomes.

 

[The_Harbinger]

The objective was to create a better democracy not a U.S. centric view of democracy.

Do you want to say that we should discuss the issue of how to create a better democracy without considering the USA - the first modern democracy
in the World (although based on European, predominantly French political
ideas), and a country that today is claiming the privelege to be a "democratic model" for the rest of the World to follow?

 

[Mirc]

It's clear: democracy prevents rulers from abuses.
Any absolute government is way more powerful, but in the hands of a bad leader, this gov can become a disaster that could kill milions of people.

Democracy has it's good points (nobody can take really big and stupid decisions, such as : Let's kill all the enemies of the party).
Absolutist governments have very big power. Without the pharaos there wouldn't be any pyramides in Egypt!

Yes, democracy is the least bad gov.

 

[Tubby Rower]

The USA is NOT a democracy. It's a republic. I know this sounds like semantics, but it's not. Democracies have more of a people rule. Republics you vote for representatives that you hope will vote how you would.

IMO, a republic is a lot better than a democracy mainly because democracies get inefficient at greater populations. The problem with most republics is corruption and career politicians. Politicians get originally elected behind noble causes then get swept up in the system. Term limits on EVERY politician would be significantly superior to the current USA system. Corruption will never be out of the picture until humans are out of the picture. Humans have a corrupt heart. In order to combat this inherent problem, limited time in office is the key.

 

[Rik Meleet]

@The_Harbinger - USA is a terrible example of democracy, if you understand the critisism I displayed in this thread. So we'll gladly consider the USA as one of the main countries who can benefit from an improved democracy. Now, either help us desing a better democracy or forever hold your silence. And please stay away from one-liners; it reflects negatively on a person's intelligence.

@Mirc: I'm not satisied with "least bad" governement; I want at least "acceptable", but preferably "best". Please read the thread before turning this into a Democracy - absolutism discussion; which it is not.

@Slozenger: yeah, that's a problem. Politicians do not feel resposible anymore when they leave office (except for reaking in credits). Perhaps one way of accomplishing this is to not focus on the person behind the politician at all, but instead on the policy and choose (yes, not elect) the person best fitted for the job. See it as a job-application for Minister-of-whatever; the best candidate gets the job. That way (s)he guarantees before starting that (s)he supports the (elected) policy.

 

[Abaddon]

So the idea voting for policy rather than the politicians? Who vets the politicians for thier job interview? OR do we vote for both?

 

[The_Harbinger]

Originally Posted by Rik Meleet :

Now, either help us desing a better democracy or forever hold your silence.

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire.

Hope this helps!

 

[The Yankee]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire.

Hope this helps!

Except this is a forum with rules, and with a subject in mind, not blatant bashing of America in a manner that has nothing to do with the topic.

 

[EdwardTking]

I believe that people should separately and directly vote for:

* the principals
* the laws
* the options
* the money source
* the main office holders
* the expenditure

So, suppose you want to build a new bridge,
there are six voting stages:

* agreeing the need
* passing the law e.g. to compulsorily purchase necessary land
* decide location and specification options
* raise money
* appoint chief of works
* pay for bridge

 

[The Yankee]

All that voting...how would you make it time and cost efficient and also get a decent turnout?

 

[EdwardTking]

All that voting...how would you make it time and cost efficient and also get a decent turnout?

Do you complete a business case to justify
the time you spend logged on to CFC?


If people care about the issue, they will vote (log-on to CFC
or whatever), and if they don't care, then they won't vote and
the matter will be decided by those who care enough to vote.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

The Aphex plan for perfect, unfallible democracy:

1. Round up all politicians in office.
2. Drug them.
3. Attach to them permanent, non-removable microphones, one videocamera (fixed to the skull) and GPS radio beacons.
4. Allow the public to watch everything in one huge reality show.
5. Every week, the public votes on who to throw out of the game (to make things more interesting, leaving the game should also mean slow death by steamroller).

There is hope yet

 

[carniflex]

Let's first focus on the reasons why Democracy -as we know it- fails. Because we vote on people and parties and not on ideas and policies. We vote for George W Bush, we vote for the CDU, we vote for Arnold Schwarzenegger. We do not vote for "War on terror", we do not vote for "sustainable energy" we do not vote for taxincreases or taxcuts. At least not directly. Would it not be a lot fairer Democracy if you do vote for those items ?

YES.
It would be a fairer democracy.

Voting for/against a policy IS/WOULD BE (real) democracy.

Voting for/electing representatives that will vote for/against a policy in the name of the people IS elected oligarchy/representative governement. It is not (real) democracy.

***

Democracy fails in long-term planning (such as efficient anti global warming policies) because politicians are elected for a limit time only, so only short term goals are what they aim for. If they reach sufficient short-term goals (such as taxcuts, wars, bridges, whatever) the voters are happy and they get re-elected. But that way long term planning always suffers.

I dont think so.
Elected representatives may succeed in long term planning. In fact, they have in one, in most of the world, during the last 25 years: the dismantling of public property and the improvement of social inequality.

About the global warming, the problem is that the aristocracy that rules the world can easily avoid the effects of the global warming on itself without caring about the people of Earth.

 

[Odin2006]

American democracy is so broken it's depressing.

We need a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister that is kept on Congress's leash, I'm sick of the Imperial Presidency. In my ideal government the House would work like the House of Commons in the UK or Canada, except with a "federalized" proportional representation (so a state's reps would be allocated by the precentages in that state). The Senate would be elected the same way they are now except the terms will be reduced to 4 years and the terms will be staggered so 1 seat would be open per state every 2 years. All legislation starts in the House, and the PM is chosen by the House from among the current representatives, the house can also overturn a Senate veto by a 2/3 vote. The Senate would not be able to initiate or modify legislation, just pass or veto it; they would confirm all the PM's appointments to the Cabinent, federal courts, etc. SCOTUS would work like it does now except justices serve a single 15-year term. All elections are publically financed, bribery by campaign contribution is NOT free speech.

I also think news companies and the major non-cable TV networks should be independent businesses, Conglomerate Multinationals should be banned from controlling the news since it is becoming apparent that the Media is becoming a propaganda tool of the multinationals that own it.

 

[Caprice]

We need a parliamentary system with a Prime Minister that is kept on Congress's leash

*emphasis added
Wouldn't this effectively disable any authority such a position would otherwise have?

 

[Suki]

After the last US election the only piece of Information i could really extracy from the exit polls was: if you lost a job this term you voted for change, If you didn't you wanted things to stay the same.

Everyone always acts in their own best interests, sometimes the country's happen to line up with theirs, so they will do what's best for the country. Nationalism is all about convincing the population the the nation's interests are in your interest as well.

"pass the test... or 10 years in the military"

Remember starship troopers? (the book, the movie was useless crap) no vote unless you have done a term of "public service" likely military, just to show that you are willing to farther the country's interests, possibly ahead of your own. You could just as easily execute the president at the end of his term so it will be much less likely that he will run for the job because he wants something out of it...

"you can't vote on a budget"

you can set it up so it's possible. include one extra form with your taxes:
'spending instructions' for the discretionary budget

military
education
health
justice
housing assistance
internal affairs
natural resource & environment
vetrians benifits (excluding pensions)
science and space
transport
training, employment & social services
...

just put a number for each. your money, proportionally, goes there.



anyway when the Robocracy takes over I'm siding with the robots.

 

[Odin2006]

*emphasis added
Wouldn't this effectively disable any authority such a position would otherwise have?

I misspoke, I ment that it is much easier to get rid of a bad prime minister thanit is to get rid of a bad president. A president can only be impeached, which requires a crime and 2/3 of Congress. With a parliamentary system the ruling party/coalition can replace the prime minister, or the House can have a no-confidence vote and have a new election.

 

[Ayatollah So]

After the last US election the only piece of Information i could really extracy from the exit polls was: if you lost a job this term you voted for change, If you didn't you wanted things to stay the same.

Everyone always acts in their own best interests, sometimes the country's happen to line up with theirs, so they will do what's best for the country.

If people voted their self-interest, "culture wars" issues like abortion and gay rights would have been settled long ago.

A big chunk of the Democrats in the U.S. keep thinking that people vote their interests. That's why they keep losing.