Designing a better Democracy

[ComradeDavo]

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.

Well, I agree with you there I am often shocked by people's lack of knowledge. But then again that might largely be because they were brought up without their parents really showing much of an intrest, so maybe having current affairs 'classes' and 'debates' might help. Also another factor I expect is that people are often too busy for the news, which of course is related to work and family, and can't be addressed properly.

 

[Rik Meleet]

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.

I don't think that'll make them focus on long-term problems more. Politicians don't just retire or die after their last term. In my country they'll take other jobs and commissaries in big companies. If they are limited to 1 term, many of them are going to use the time to brush up their Curriculum Vitae.

 

[Cuivienen]

@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.

True, and I agree that a better solution could be found in capping campaign spending at, for example, $10,000 (for House), $x0,000 where x is the state's number of House seats (for Senate) and $4,350,000 (for the Presidency). However, term limits are also a viable answer, and I don't think there is a shortage of people as effective as or more effective than the current Congress.

 

[Kayak]

True, and I agree that a better solution could be found in capping campaign spending at, for example, $10,000 (for House), $x0,000 where x is the state's number of House seats (for Senate) and $4,350,000 (for the Presidency). However, term limits are also a viable answer, and I don't think there is a shortage of people as effective as or more effective than the current Congress.

What sort of limits would you propose? It would be too easy to lose someone good IMO. Although limits on consecutive terms might be a good idea.

 

[Cuivienen]

What sort of limits would you propose? It would be too easy to lose someone good IMO. Although limits on consecutive terms might be a good idea.

Losing good people is a sacrifice that would have to be made in exchange for cycling out bad people. As there's no objective way to measure "goodness" and we agree that easy incumbency is a bad thing, we have to be willing to give up the good as well as the bad. We already do that with Presidents, and there are virtually no Senators or Representatives "good" enough, in my mind, that it's even worth giving them an extra term.

 

[Ayatollah So]

If people can't make good decisions on incumbents, why would they make better decisions on unknown quantities? I think Kayak's idea - no term limits, but institute tighter campaign finance restrictions, and take redistricting away from Congress - is superior. Take the noise away, but leave the signal. An established record in office is a good signal.

 

[Whomp]

Not allowing people to vote based on intelligence smacks of elitism. There is enough elitism in government as it stands today. I also like Kayak's idea of no term limits (except for the executive branch) and serious CAP financing restrictions and limited lobbying. Democracy is a process; it is not an end. You don't arrive there. It's a continuing process.

My idea would be to decentralize the government and empower the people. Similar to what the UK has done with their health care system and the U.S. has done with the postal service. Bring it to the local level and give more power to the local legislator (or the local network). This system would create a network and networks should replace nation states. An example of this would be the ethnic networks like the overseas Chinese network, the overseas Korean network, the nonresident Indian network, Visa card network these work best. These are the models for government to look at because what we are seeing is a new kind of bigness globally-- big networks, not big mainframes.

In that metaphor, the old, big government is the mainframe. You can't survive as a mainframe, and you have to be self-organizing to the local level. The great model for self-organization is nature. Nature is totally self-organizing and works beautifully unless we interfere.

The main problem, I see, is learning how to get out of the way and let people create their own futures. This is Japan's problem; it can't bring itself to get out of the way. There you have had a kind of state capitalism, with big companies and big government, and that has worked well for them in the past. But now, in a really competitive global economy, it's working against them. The government has to get out of commerce. It has to let go and let the millions of decisions that individuals and individual companies and entrepreneurs make -- that are the marketplace -- run the economy rather than this coalition of government and companies, but then it is very hard for them to do that. So government's job now is to learn how to get out of the way.

 

[willemvanoranje]

I don't think that'll make them focus on long-term problems more. Politicians don't just retire or die after their last term. In my country they'll take other jobs and commissaries in big companies. If they are limited to 1 term, many of them are going to use the time to brush up their Curriculum Vitae.

Exactly.. they take place in committees, start advicing companies.. at some point and in sone circumstances they will have more power and influence than when they were politicians!

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.

Well.. before we had an entirely parochial culture.. that changed. Democracy changed it too, it made the civic culture. Besides, we cannot have a civic culture excisting 100% of participants. The mix is needed to keep a democracy operational: too much participation would clogg the machine. Besides, over the past decade a new, interesting middle culture has started: the monitor culture. It's people from the subject culture (that basically only vote), with the difference that they do act when they feel it's necessary, yet not automatically participate with every protest etc. They monitor the government and just speak up when they think something is really wrong.


BTW, what the US really needs is the end of the spoils system.

 

[Caprice]

BTW, what the US really needs is the end of the spoils system.

AGREED

In addition to that, I'd also like to see companies be forced to abstain from stating a political affiliation or other form of support. I find it incredibly offencive when a newspaper organization states that they support candidate A and C but not B, and I think this sort of restriction should go for all companies. Ads badmouthing candidates put up by organizations (like Move on or Swift Boat Vets) should be illegal, IMO. I don't mind the candidates organizing their own ad programming, but biased people outside the process should shut up -- it just turns into a big he said-she said kinda thing, no point to it.

I think that makes sense... lol

 

[The Yankee]

True, and I agree that a better solution could be found in capping campaign spending at, for example, $10,000 (for House), $x0,000 where x is the state's number of House seats (for Senate) and $4,350,000 (for the Presidency). However, term limits are also a viable answer, and I don't think there is a shortage of people as effective as or more effective than the current Congress.

I'd prefer that system. With term limits, you do have people too busy looking for their next job to be effective (if they were at all) during the final stretch.

 

[sanabas]

I've only skimmed this thread, so apologies if I'm cross posting. The first big problem I see are that people are stupid, and choose their votes based on irrelevant crap. That one seems to have been discussed a bit.

The second one is the dichotomy between what politicians are paid to do as their job, and what most of them aim to do with their job. I can't think of another job that has such a difference. Politicians are paid to govern the country/state/etc. Politicians' first priority is to remain in power. Even in cases where terms are limited, such as the US presidency, the aim of the president's party is still to make sure they supply the next president.

 

[El_Machinae]

I hear you.

I think we need explosive collars on politicians - and if they ever knowingly lie, their head explodes.

You'd have to pay a lot more, but it would be worth the honesty.

 

[mdwh]

From a UK perspective....

I want to see a switch to proportional representation to elect our politicians. A Party would need at least 5% of the votes before they became eligable for seats (this is taken from the German system of course, to stop extremist parties getting any seats).

That would be alot better then at current, where parliment is not reflective of the % of votes cast per party.

This wouild go along way towards making the country more democratic.

I agree with this. Though one issue that some consider a problem is that you are then voting for parties (and the party can full the seats with who they like), rather than individual candidates.

To add that, we should also have an elected House Of Lords...no politician should ever be appointed if we are to be a real Democracy.

Gah, no. The whole point of having a 2nd house is that it is unelected, otherwise it would just be a repeat of the house of commons. It might not be "true" democracy, but democracy isn't perfect - that's the whole point of this topic. People are very quick to vote for the popular person, or vote away their rights.

 

[Taliesin]

I agree with this. Though one issue that some consider a problem is that you are then voting for parties (and the party can full the seats with who they like), rather than individual candidates.

Most systems don't have this problem, because they maintain the riding structure, but add some number of extra seats to produce appropriate shares in the House.

 

[mdwh]

One thing that would greatly improve things is a better voting system. A single vote simply doesn't work with more than two parties, for two main reasons:
- The problem when two parties have similar issues; the vote is split between them.
- People see a vote for anyone other then the two main parties as a waste, so you get tactical voting, and it's very hard for the other parties to get votes.

Examples of decent voting system are Condorcet voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method) and Approval voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting) (systems like Single Transfererable vote, which are commonly seen as improvements to the current voting systems, still have flaws such as issues of tactical voting).

 

[The Yankee]

Gah, no. The whole point of having a 2nd house is that it is unelected, otherwise it would just be a repeat of the house of commons. It might not be "true" democracy, but democracy isn't perfect - that's the whole point of this topic. People are very quick to vote for the popular person, or vote away their rights.

It used to be that our Senate was elected rather indirectly, by the State Legislature, instead of popular vote. But that was changed almost a century ago...the terms are three times as long as those in the House and they're statewide...I think it does it's job much nicer than political appointees would do, even if the Senate isn't all that great lately.

 

[Rik Meleet]

One thing that would greatly improve things is a better voting system. A single vote simply doesn't work with more than two parties, for two main reasons:
- The problem when two parties have similar issues; the vote is split between them.
- People see a vote for anyone other then the two main parties as a waste, so you get tactical voting, and it's very hard for the other parties to get votes.

(..)

So, let's get rid of political parties altogether and the principle of voting on people. In the end I don't care if "John" or "Karen" or "Tom" is minister of <whatever-department> as long as (s)he does the job. The opinion on the economy, health-service etc. of the minister of Education is of no (or little) importance to being able to be a good minister of Education. And the goals of the Education system are to be voted on, not the face working on it.

 

[The Yankee]

Non-partisan elections? Hmm...the idea has some merit.

However, it seems that parties are a natural progression in politics, especially in larger countries.

Additionally, tough spending laws would have to be in place (at least here), so that a much richer candidate cannot spend a fortune to overwhelm an opponent even more than he/she would be able to if the opponent had a party behind it.

 

[ComradeDavo]

I agree with this. Though one issue that some consider a problem is that you are then voting for parties (and the party can full the seats with who they like), rather than individual candidates.

Well, this can be addressed by having more emphasis on local government. That way people have politicians easily accesiable to them concerning local issues, and those are the ones where you really need 'individual' candidates.

Gah, no. The whole point of having a 2nd house is that it is unelected, otherwise it would just be a repeat of the house of commons. It might not be "true" democracy, but democracy isn't perfect - that's the whole point of this topic. People are very quick to vote for the popular person, or vote away their rights.

At current Blair is slowly trying to fill the Hosue Of Lords with his cronies, and i'd take elected officials over appointed ones any day.

 

[Whomp]

Well, this can be addressed by having more emphasis on local government. That way people have politicians easily accesiable to them concerning local issues, and those are the ones where you really need 'individual' candidates.

100% agreement Davo. I would add that a local candidate will be held much more accountable to his consituents this way.