Designing a better Democracy

[Rik Meleet]

We've all heard one-liners that Democracy is a bad government, but not as bad as the rest. Winston Churchill said many years ago, that democracy is the least bad of all of the systems of government produced out of human experience. And the observant ones of us have seen it.
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.

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

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 ? Not Democracy-of-people, but Democracy-of-policies ?

 

[El_Machinae]

I also support transparency in taxes. For example, in Alberta, we know what we pay for our Health Care Insurance. This means we can monitor the cost directly.

My 'big change' would be a reduction in privacy for people in power. I think that every conversation between the Prime Minister and any of his fellow decision makers should be open-source to Canadians.

 

[The Yankee]

And that comes to more problems. There are lots and lots of policies out there. How would the voting populace become knowledgeable in each subject and how much time and money would it cost to hold an election for all these things (oddly enough, a complaint some have on politicians needing to look at polls before deciding anything). Lastly, how would this work in emergency situations?

 

[Xen]

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.

undersuch circumstances, I belive people will beforced to look at what long term issues a candidate has stances on.

 

[The Yankee]

You would need better opportunities to get rid of said public official if they were elected for much longer terms, in my opinion.

 

[El_Machinae]

But he has a point. An elected official should be 'on the hook' for the state of his institution for longer than the time he is in office.

 

[The Yankee]

So what would you propose? On the book for the state longer than the time in office implies that we could go lynch the guy even a year after he's out of office.

I would think the Internet could be a valuable tool for later democracy, but there will still need to be a campaign to get rid of voter apathy, and everyone would need access. Also, you would then have to figure out who gets to oversee those operations.

 

[El_Machinae]

On the book for the state longer than the time in office implies that we could go lynch the guy even a year after he's out of office.

That would be a good incentive to fix things properly when he had the chance. If you can't fix thing properly in 4 years, then you should at least be able to set a plan in motion where things get progressively better.

 

[The Yankee]

In theory, that's what should happen anyway. It's the cry of endless campaign promises, especially if the electorate didn't like the last guy or the last guy was terribly inept.

How would you hold someone responsible for things happening after his/her term in office anyway? Besides, the usual cries of "it's all X's fault!"

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

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.

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

Let's first focus on the reasons why Democracy -as we know it- fails.

You're confusing direct democracy with representational democracy. The democracy of Athens had no long-term policy making except in the election of the strategoi (generals), and they were only elected for 1 year terms (but could be re-elected). The rest of the political body were chosen by lot. Modern representative democracy has officials that can be re-elected, although to a limited degree. Long-term policy is possible because of this.

If you allow people to vote on specific enactments of law or policy, you have plebiscites, which aren't a good idea. Historically, public sentiment is fickle and has been demonstrated to be either destructive or easily prone to demagoguery.

 

[Wolfe Tone]

I suggest that Election manifestoes should be legally binding contracts. I'm not really sure on the specifics, for example things complelty outside the politcians control. But the whole promising the world before the election and then doing nothing has to go somehow.

One thing it seems no matter who is being voted for it's always seems to a choice between bad and worse. We tend to elect people who will do the least damage rather than the most good.

 

[Yeeek]

Technocracy

 

[The Yankee]

I suggest that Election manifestoes should be legally binding contracts. I'm not really sure on the specifics, for example things complelty outside the politcians control. But the whole promising the world before the election and then doing nothing has to go somehow.

That sounds great...but the promises are often not entirely within a politician's control. For an executive, they need a legislature to sign off on many things, outside events may tinker with the results, and a judge might strike down some things anyway. For someone going to the legislature, they have all the other representatives to deal with as well as an executive and judiciary.

The problem is more about the promises, given in definites ("I will," not "I will try"). But there's no legal way (in the US anyway) to punish that, aside from kicking them out the next time.

 

[Kozmos]

Technocracy

Demosocialist Technocracy you mean

 

[Riesstiu IV]

Demosocialist Technocracy you mean

No, Technocratic Fascism with robot armies and cyborg agents!

 

[Yeeek]

That remind me of that game from bullfrog (sp?) Syndicate. Sorry don't want to hijack the thread.

But yes thats what i had in mind when i said, technocracy

 

[Ayatollah So]

The democracy of Athens had no long-term policy making except in the election of the strategoi (generals), and they were only elected for 1 year terms (but could be re-elected). The rest of the political body were chosen by lot.

I think we should copy them in the choosing by lot aspect. The randomly chosen representatives should have longish terms so they can learn the business of govt. This severely restricts the possibility of buying government policy, because these reps would have no need to fund election campaigns.

Biggest downside: average Americans (insert your nationality here) are probably significantly less intelligent than our typical current representatives. I'll take stupid over evil, though. And they can hire intelligent staffers (and we can block the revolving doors that go between government service and employment with government contractors).

On plebiscites, I largely agree with Nano. There's a place for them, but they should face tough hurdles (large number of petition signatures for example). The big problem: Whoever phrases the question wins the day. Carpe dictum!

 

[Leonel]

I would say that a term of 10 years would be good. Candidates MUST talk about what exactly they'll do about certain issues that will actually make a difference to all citizens in a simple to understand format. They also must not do anything to badmouth their contenders. Otherwise they may spend all their time just mudslinging each other and not get any of their ideas across. The huge thing that really turned me off voting in the US Elections in 2004 was this "Bush voters are dumb" and "Kerry voters are dumb" and people assaulting those that did not conform to their view and vandelizing government property etc. It felt like what one see's when soccer fans riot and a nice sport collapses into street fighting.

 

[Tenochtitlan]

One problem is that an election becomes a popularity contest. Tactics such as gerrymandering are used to win an election.

Another is that many of the constituents are uninformed. I suggest that the constituents take a standardized test, to assess how informed they are. The score then is multiplied by vote their vote, giving them how many 'vote-points' they can use. This will give the more informed people a heavier weight in the total constituency.

My 'big change' would be a reduction in privacy for people in power. I think that every conversation between the Prime Minister and any of his fellow decision makers should be open-source to Canadians.

I like this idea.

 

[The Yankee]

Don't you think a "competancy test" of some kind would become a political football in itself? I don't know what would be tested and be truely in objectivity.