4 ms·

Yes, democracy is cumbersome but I don't see any better alternatives. You could argue that Singapore is doing great without them being a democracy but it has it

Yes, democracy is cumbersome but I don't see any better alternatives. You could argue that Singapore is doing great without them being a democracy but it has it's fair share of problems and it's not for everybody. Do you have any alternatives in mind?

n4r9 5y ago
They gave a couple of ideas: breaking up the media and increasing the number of viable political parties. Reforming the voting system would greatly aid the latter
- darebak 5y ago
  Sure, but that's still democracy.
  - n4r9 5y ago
    Oh, perhaps we read the OP differently. I interpreted it as saying "democracy is implemented badly in the UK" not "democracy is inherently bad".
marcyb5st 5y ago
I am looking forward for a day where policy making is aided by AI or some advanced modeling that estimates impact over long time spans. The reality is that a lot of terrible policies have been applied over the years due to short term gains (e.g. being re-elected) and no one thought 20+ years down the line. For example, the Italian phenomenon of the so-called baby-pensioni (people that retired when less than 50y and some even 40). At the time it was great, unemployment drop to ~0% overnight and everybody was happy. 40ish years down the line Italy has a crippling debt also because we are still maintaining millions that have been unproductive for almost 40 years now. Someone or something looking at long term repercussions could have avoided this altogether. The same can be said for subsidising travel industry, ... . True, not applying these policies will slow down economic growth in the short term, but if they create such an outcome they probably were never sustainable to begin with. And it's better to have 40years at 2% growth than 15 years at 5% and then 0 for 25.
- darebak 5y ago
  >I am looking forward for a day where policy making is aided by AI or some advanced modeling that estimates impact over long time spans. Who sets the incentives for the AI? What are we measuring? GDP? "Happiness"? "Goodness"? "Sustainability"? AI overlords are foremost a philosophical problem, then technological. I fail to see how those situations you presented would be better with AI dictators.
  - marcyb5st 5y ago
    I said aided, I am not pushing for AI to control our lives. I am arguing for having tools (I mentioned AI and modeling) that could help legislators have a more quantitative measure of how things will change long term. Even better if the forecasts are shared with the public. I am optimistic, and I hope that if back in the 80s the Italian government would have seen the "we are gonna impact in a negative ways the next 2 generations by doing this" they wouldn't have followed through. The goodness, Happiness, sustainability, ... are still in the hands of legislators. In my mind, before proposing something for approval, they can ask the mentioned "oracle" and see how things turn out according to a variety of metrics. We are years/decades to have such predicting power, but that's what I hope to see in the future.
- hotpotamus 5y ago
  I think this is impossible. It seems like trying to model the weather (or any chaotic system) in the long term, but with the added difficulty that it would have to also model its own impact on the system. But if you want a little laugh at the idea, Mitchell and Webb did a skit: https://youtu.be/owI7DOeO_yg https://youtu.be/owI7DOeO_yg
LatteLazy 5y ago
I won't pretend I know an answer. But I do think we need major reform. I'd like to see: * A Ban on political parties at least on their names on ballots (so you have to at least know your MPs name, no one can just vote Labour/Conservative) and funding for local campaigns (so local MPs rely on the local party not national donors to get elected). * We need to break up foreign owned and corporate media (newspapers and TV are mostly controlled by the Murdoch family here, the person he blesses wins most elections). * Scrapping FPTP and constituencies or at least making constituencies bigger and getting them to select multiple reps. Right now, you can win a seat with 30% of the vote and 70% of people are not represented. It's even worse when you know you'll get 25% just because of your party, so you desperately chase about 5% of voters who might "swing" to you. 95% of people might as well not exist. * There is a good argument to divide reps based not on head of population but on groups like we used to (commoners vs lords etc). But to do it based on age. Right now, the UK hasn't had an election NOT decided by one demographic bulge for about 50 years. When they were young they demanded (and got) free university, housing and healthcare. Now they're old we have scrapped all that and we're just enlessly throwing money at pensioners and closing everything else. Maybe we should have 100 employees elected by voters 18-30, 100 for 30-40s, etc? * If I were really radical, I'd scrap voting for most people and replace it with the equivalent of jury duty: pick 1 person per 1000 like for a jury (over 18, not in prison, not insane, eligible to vote, not related to a candidate etc that would be about 250 people for my borough), taken drag them to a hall somewhere 9-5 mon-fri for 6 weeks, and give all the candidates a day or two each to speak and answer questions. Let them request experts or further info etc. Then those 250 people can vote to pick the MP. Right now, there is zero incentive to know anything before you vote and most people have no idea what is going on. I arrogantly consider myself well informed, but I'd be a lot better informed if it had been the equivalent of a job for a few weeks before polling day. * Maybe even replace our (messy, unelected but also full of failed politicians) second house with experts or even a random selection of citizens. Again, these are just my ideas (mostly stolen from others, none original). But I think right now our governments are failing both practically (bad policy) AND democratically (they're unpopular and cannot secure the support of 51% of adults). They are the the product of a very complex system that includes the occasional flawed vote BUT doesn't really make them democratic IMHO. The danger here is that eventually the majority of people will get so pissed off they will abandon the whole thing and we'll "elect" a strong man like Putin who is at least effective. Then there will be no more elections and his kids won't be effective and we'll be stuck with them...

n4r9 5y ago

They gave a couple of ideas: breaking up the media and increasing the number of viable political parties. Reforming the voting system would greatly aid the latter

darebak 5y ago
Sure, but that's still democracy.
- n4r9 5y ago
  Oh, perhaps we read the OP differently. I interpreted it as saying "democracy is implemented badly in the UK" not "democracy is inherently bad".

marcyb5st 5y ago

I am looking forward for a day where policy making is aided by AI or some advanced modeling that estimates impact over long time spans. The reality is that a lot of terrible policies have been applied over the years due to short term gains (e.g. being re-elected) and no one thought 20+ years down the line. For example, the Italian phenomenon of the so-called baby-pensioni (people that retired when less than 50y and some even 40). At the time it was great, unemployment drop to ~0% overnight and everybody was happy. 40ish years down the line Italy has a crippling debt also because we are still maintaining millions that have been unproductive for almost 40 years now. Someone or something looking at long term repercussions could have avoided this altogether. The same can be said for subsidising travel industry, ... . True, not applying these policies will slow down economic growth in the short term, but if they create such an outcome they probably were never sustainable to begin with. And it's better to have 40years at 2% growth than 15 years at 5% and then 0 for 25.

darebak 5y ago
>I am looking forward for a day where policy making is aided by AI or some advanced modeling that estimates impact over long time spans. Who sets the incentives for the AI? What are we measuring? GDP? "Happiness"? "Goodness"? "Sustainability"? AI overlords are foremost a philosophical problem, then technological. I fail to see how those situations you presented would be better with AI dictators.
- marcyb5st 5y ago
  I said aided, I am not pushing for AI to control our lives. I am arguing for having tools (I mentioned AI and modeling) that could help legislators have a more quantitative measure of how things will change long term. Even better if the forecasts are shared with the public. I am optimistic, and I hope that if back in the 80s the Italian government would have seen the "we are gonna impact in a negative ways the next 2 generations by doing this" they wouldn't have followed through. The goodness, Happiness, sustainability, ... are still in the hands of legislators. In my mind, before proposing something for approval, they can ask the mentioned "oracle" and see how things turn out according to a variety of metrics. We are years/decades to have such predicting power, but that's what I hope to see in the future.
hotpotamus 5y ago
I think this is impossible. It seems like trying to model the weather (or any chaotic system) in the long term, but with the added difficulty that it would have to also model its own impact on the system. But if you want a little laugh at the idea, Mitchell and Webb did a skit: https://youtu.be/owI7DOeO_yg https://youtu.be/owI7DOeO_yg

LatteLazy 5y ago

I won't pretend I know an answer. But I do think we need major reform. I'd like to see: * A Ban on political parties at least on their names on ballots (so you have to at least know your MPs name, no one can just vote Labour/Conservative) and funding for local campaigns (so local MPs rely on the local party not national donors to get elected). * We need to break up foreign owned and corporate media (newspapers and TV are mostly controlled by the Murdoch family here, the person he blesses wins most elections). * Scrapping FPTP and constituencies or at least making constituencies bigger and getting them to select multiple reps. Right now, you can win a seat with 30% of the vote and 70% of people are not represented. It's even worse when you know you'll get 25% just because of your party, so you desperately chase about 5% of voters who might "swing" to you. 95% of people might as well not exist. * There is a good argument to divide reps based not on head of population but on groups like we used to (commoners vs lords etc). But to do it based on age. Right now, the UK hasn't had an election NOT decided by one demographic bulge for about 50 years. When they were young they demanded (and got) free university, housing and healthcare. Now they're old we have scrapped all that and we're just enlessly throwing money at pensioners and closing everything else. Maybe we should have 100 employees elected by voters 18-30, 100 for 30-40s, etc? * If I were really radical, I'd scrap voting for most people and replace it with the equivalent of jury duty: pick 1 person per 1000 like for a jury (over 18, not in prison, not insane, eligible to vote, not related to a candidate etc that would be about 250 people for my borough), taken drag them to a hall somewhere 9-5 mon-fri for 6 weeks, and give all the candidates a day or two each to speak and answer questions. Let them request experts or further info etc. Then those 250 people can vote to pick the MP. Right now, there is zero incentive to know anything before you vote and most people have no idea what is going on. I arrogantly consider myself well informed, but I'd be a lot better informed if it had been the equivalent of a job for a few weeks before polling day. * Maybe even replace our (messy, unelected but also full of failed politicians) second house with experts or even a random selection of citizens. Again, these are just my ideas (mostly stolen from others, none original). But I think right now our governments are failing both practically (bad policy) AND democratically (they're unpopular and cannot secure the support of 51% of adults). They are the the product of a very complex system that includes the occasional flawed vote BUT doesn't really make them democratic IMHO. The danger here is that eventually the majority of people will get so pissed off they will abandon the whole thing and we'll "elect" a strong man like Putin who is at least effective. Then there will be no more elections and his kids won't be effective and we'll be stuck with them...