|
This forum: Pool our thoughts
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Subey |
Various threads have mentioned ways in which democratic government can be improved.
What if we put some effort into coming up with a coherent proposal about what we think a Neo Democracy should look like?
My initial 2 Proposals are: (I will use the american system as a point of reference since most everyone is familiar with how the empire is run)
1 Chimeric Government:
Raison D'etre: A single party can't accurately represent your beliefs.
1. Divide the government up into 5 major branches. Ex. Foreign,Education,Health,Economy. The head of each branch directs the policy for that branch.
2. When you vote. You vote for which party you want to represent you in each branch.
Ex:
Foreign: Vote republican (I like their approach to the war on Terror)
Education: Vote republican (I like their no child left behind)
Health: Vote democrats (I am interested in health reforms)
Economy: Vote democrats (I like their approach to unemployment reforms)
2 Knowledge is Power
Raison D'etre: 1 person = 1 vote doesn't take into account knowledge. An informed opinion weighs more than an uninformed one.
1. For each branch, everyone of legal voting age vote is worth 1 point.
2. You can take tests to be classified as a knowledgable voter, and as a result of those tests your vote is worth more. Basic: 1.25 votes. Intermediate: 1.75 votes. Expert: 2 votes.
Ex:
Joe Voter decides that he wants to take the "Basic Foreign Branch Test". Joe studies a guide (like a driver's licence road test booklet) and learns some of the basics about geopolitics, passes the test and now his vote for the Foreign Branch is worth 1.25 |
|
|
| Sunsnail |
| So, still just two parties, or was that just an example. |
|
|
| DrUg_Tit0 |
| Personally I am for the variable vote value depending on the knowledge of the subject at matter, but dividing government into some sort of ministries of whom each has its indvidiual elections seems a bit far fetched because they are all dependant upon the money provided by the central government. Meaning that a democratic healthcare in a government where the finances are controlled by the republicans can be hardly any better than the republican healthcare, and vice-versa. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0
Personally I am for the variable vote value depending on the knowledge of the subject at matter, but dividing government into some sort of ministries of whom each has its indvidiual elections seems a bit far fetched because they are all dependant upon the money provided by the central government. Meaning that a democratic healthcare in a government where the finances are controlled by the republicans can be hardly any better than the republican healthcare, and vice-versa. |
Well, they could each set their own taxes and that would solve that problem! I like the idea, cause many times you like different ideas by different parties! The idea needs to be worked upon, but its defently a good one. And so is the knowledge system, but im affraid that it would never work in reality :( |
|
|
| Aquarian |
The vote value idea is a good one, but the masses still outweigh the intellectuals by a considerable margin. What I've always thought would be best is what I call a 'partial democracy'. Essentially it works like this: Once you turn 18, you're allowed to take a test. This test is designed to test your intelligence, and verify that you have at least a good basic knowledge of politics. Everyone's results are compiled, and then only the top 25-50% or so are allowed to vote at all. Using that very same test, only the top 1% are allowed to run for office.
That's the greatest idea on paper. Unfortunately we don't have any way of mesuring intelligence. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
The vote value idea is a good one, but the masses still outweigh the intellectuals by a considerable margin. What I've always thought would be best is what I call a 'partial democracy'. Essentially it works like this: Once you turn 18, you're allowed to take a test. This test is designed to test your intelligence, and verify that you have at least a good basic knowledge of politics. Everyone's results are compiled, and then only the top 25-50% or so are allowed to vote at all. Using that very same test, only the top 1% are allowed to run for office. |
Why limit that to people over 18? Wouldnt it be better without a limit, since you still have to pass the test, so it wouldnt really matter if you were 12 passing the test or 44? |
|
|
| Aquarian |
| Well the voting age exists for a reason, and I still think that reason is pretty valid. You can be smart and you can take an interrest in politics at any age, but when you're 12 you don't really have a good understanding of how the world works. Your perspective in completely different. Once you turn 18 you've generally been through more personal experiences, and that allows you to make more mature decisions. |
|
|
| est |
| quote: | Originally posted by Aquarian
Well the voting age exists for a reason, and I still think that reason is pretty valid. You can be smart and you can take an interrest in politics at any age, but when you're 12 you don't really have a good understanding of how the world works. Your perspective in completely different. Once you turn 18 you've generally been through more personal experiences, and that allows you to make more mature decisions. |
Sure, but this kind of ageism isn't really in keeping with a democracy. Voters have their reasons for their decisions, and it's not really up to anybody else to say their opinion isn't valid. Secondly, politicians are notorious for ignoring people don't vote, so offering under 18s a vote might encourage that more consideration, which would be a good thing.
Similar thougts on the knowledge test idea. Those who are likely to do badly in the test (e.g. those with learning difficulties) would get increasingly ignored and manifesto attention would bias towards those groups of people stereotyped to do well in the test. So, altogether, this kind of a system might worsen an already biased system. |
|
|
| pkcRAISTLIN |
interesting concepts.
well, except for the skewed voting idea, which is largely arrogant and thoroughly undemocratic. and also raises questions regarding who sets the tests, and what they test for. a political theorist like myself wouldnt do very well on a maths test for instance ;) what values do we hold highly to base a test upon? thatd be a debate that would rage forever.
do you really believe those that are naturally more intelligent, or have been lucky to receive decent schooling deserve more of a say in a govt that is meant to represent everybody? it marginalises the poor, thats for sure. and i dont think one\'s natural gifts should give even more of an advantage via a greater say in a nation\'s affairs.
so dumb person #1 votes republican.
smart person #1 votes republican.
coz smart person \"knows\" better than dumb person, they get another vote? i dont think so. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by St_Andrew
Well, they could each set their own taxes and that would solve that problem! I like the idea, cause many times you like different ideas by different parties! The idea needs to be worked upon, but its defently a good one. And so is the knowledge system, but im affraid that it would never work in reality :( |
How to manage taxation would be a big issue. I look at it from the perspective that if humans can put a man on the moon, then they can figure out how to distribute money.
Each branch setting its own taxation is an option I hadn't considered but considering that there are variable taxes right now (i.e. for gas, vs federal vs provincial vs municipal vs food etc. )I think something could be worked out. |
|
|
| Subey |
| quote: | Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN
coz smart person \"knows\" better than dumb person, they get another vote? i dont think so. |
The easiest example I can think of is the following:
If I have ZERO knowledge about economics and I am given the choice of choosing between the following three choices to spur the economy:
a) "lower corporate taxes"
b) "lower personal income tax"
c) "lower sales tax"
How do I choose? If I have no idea of the implications or the logic behind any of them then I might as well roll a die or flip some coins.
That's democracy in its current form to me.
At the end of the day, *I* don't want to flip coins. I don't want my neighbours to flip coins. I think asking people to take tests (figuring out how to make those tests useful and reasonable is a secondary issue) to demonstrate that their choice is based on an knowledge seems reasonable to me. |
|
|
| Aiwendil |
Things the people in this forum could do if they applied their collective intelligence:
*Cure the common cold
*Figure out how felines purr
*Argue about various topics to no conclusive end
*Make a fat free Krispy Kreme donut
*Make diet Pepsi taste even better than regular Pepsi
In all honesty though, you guys should use your powers for good. Be like the good version of those evil psychic aliens from Star Trek. Don't make people do your bidding when your bidding be bad. Save the rain(forest), plant some trees. Save Southern California, kill some Africanized Honey Bees. Dream a dream. Sing a song. Bring the people of the world together with your superior smarts so I can scatter them with my superior farts. |
|
|
|
|
