7 ms·

I'm glad Bolsonaro didn't win, but this clearly doesn't end Brazil's troubles. Bolsonaro still got a lot of votes, and it was a very tight race. On top of that,

by mcv 4y ago

I'm glad Bolsonaro didn't win, but this clearly doesn't end Brazil's troubles. Bolsonaro still got a lot of votes, and it was a very tight race. On top of that, Lula isn't exactly perfect either. Brazil needs better candidates. A healthier political system where those better candidates rise to the top. Of course the same is true for the US. Or for most countries, really. But somehow appointing leaders based on popularity and a willingness to work to attain power, does not seem to produce a lot of candidates immune to corruption or other forms of power hunger.

yladiz 4y ago
This will sound a bit flippant but what's the alternative to appointing leaders by popularity (aka voting)? All systems are prone to corruption, it more depends on the safeguards within the system that prevent it from being abused.
- noworriesnate 4y ago
  Sortition[1]. It's been tried before, with some success. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
  - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
    How are you going to work on long term plans with sortition? At least with vote elections if you are doing well you can be voted again to keep doing what you do.
    - lapcat 4y ago
      How are you going to work on long term plans with elections every 2 or 4 years? Every politician is always looking to the next election, not to the longer term. The lack of "next election" pressure gives sortition the advantage in looking to the future instead of the short term. Elections are what drive corruption and short term thinking.
      - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
        > How are you going to work on long term plans with elections every 2 or 4 years? Oh I completely agree. I'm not in favor of the current system, more dubious of randomly picking rulers. If you look at efficiency, authocratic countries are working much better than democratic ones at the moment.
        yladiz 4y ago
        It’s misleading because they seem to function better but in the long term they always have significant systemic issues due to the political system that are either nonexistent or minimized in a more democratic society.
        gotorazor 4y ago
        If an autocratic country isn't doing well, how would you know? Who would loudly say anything? Please also note that many forms of non-democratic government. Some work better than others.
        pastacacioepepe 4y ago
        > If an autocratic country isn't doing well, how would you know? Who would loudly say anything? Protests and rebellions happen all the time, no matter how heavily autocratic a country is. You see this everywhere in the world, look at Iran where protesters are shot but keep protesting. Hell, just look at history, look at how much lives have been sacrificed on the altar of revolution. I don't believe that any autocracy could suppress discontent enough for the rest of the world to not know, if widely spread.
        Tainnor 4y ago
        > If you look at efficiency, authocratic countries are working much better than democratic ones at the moment. Like Erdogan's Turkey where inflation is currently at 83%? Or Putin's Russia that can't even launch a successful military campaign against a supposedly weaker opponent? Or China who's unsuccessfully been trying to stamp out Covid for months now with brutal lockdowns harsher than anything that covid skepticists are talking about in the West? Or Venezuela? North Korea?
    - gotorazor 4y ago
      It doesn't. Sortition is more like random sampling of the overall population. The assumption is that those being sampled are already "qualified," since Athenian citizens only make up the top 10% of the population. And, anybody who gets picked usually has some kind of qualifying process after the lottery. Additionally, it is typically used for large bodies (like members of a legislature) rather than a single office (like a President.) This limits the damage any one single individual can make. I don't think the ancient Greeks believe in "Long Term Planning" in the way we believe it today. For that, you would have to believe in the "future" and "progress".
      - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
        I feel this could work if the "random rulers" would only work as administrators, legally required to follow a long term political plan that has been defined democratically with the population. I believe in both the future and progress, so a long term plan is required to me. Look at China and what they're accomplishing with their 2035 plan. I whish my country's politicians could think at least 15 years in the future when they legislate.
      - mcv 4y ago
        It's an interesting idea, but I think the more important part is ensuring that the candidates are qualified. Of course whoever decides on who's qualified or not will have a lot of power over the process. There needs to be some sort of objective measure to determine that, and that's going to be hard, and constantly subject to attempts to allow or ban popular controversial candidates. Personally I've been thinking if maybe it would be a good idea if everybody could both vote for someone, and against someone else. That way, the most controversial candidates would never be able to win. Athens had a slightly harsher system where people would vote to banish anyone who was deemed to have become too powerful. On the other hand, if the system is too moderating, it could become too conservative and it might become impossible to change the system once it's on a certain course; any popular newcomer who wants to address certain problems in the system would immediately be blocked by everybody who benefits from those problems.
    - amadeuspagel 4y ago
      Interesting point. One possible solution might be to replace the parliament gradually. Rather then having an election every four years, you might replace one member of parliament with a randomly choosen citizen every week.
rockbruno 4y ago
The problem with Brazil is that the country is just too big. It will never happen, but I'm confident that the solution to Brazil's rampant corruption and violence is to break up the country. In every single election it's clear that the north and the south are two completely different countries that keep getting into each other's way and preventing the country from evolving. I don't think it's a coincidence that the best countries in the world to live are geographically small. Large countries like Brazil/US/Russia have way too much stuff and people going on at the same time, it's impossible to manage them properly.
- medo-bear 4y ago
  sure. small countries are much more adept at asserting their independence against bigger countries. also breaking up a country is always a peaceful affair
  - mcv 4y ago
    Breaking up a country is hardly a peaceful affair; it's almost impossible to do. But that doesn't change the fact that he has a point: large countries do seem to be harder to govern and develop effectively.
    - medo-bear 4y ago
      lets test the validity of his point by breaking up australia, canada, and maybe the united states
      - mcv 4y ago
        I've got the feeling Russia is first in line. Though admittedly some Americans also seem eager to try.
        medo-bear 4y ago
        americans are eager to break up russia ? sure they probably think russia is on another planet
matheusmoreira 4y ago
> Brazil needs better candidates. A healthier political system where those better candidates rise to the top. Yes. I think one of the causes of the problem is the fact all the top level positions are appointed by the winning politicians. I have no doubt they purchase support from each other that way.

by mcv 4y ago

yladiz 4y ago

This will sound a bit flippant but what's the alternative to appointing leaders by popularity (aka voting)? All systems are prone to corruption, it more depends on the safeguards within the system that prevent it from being abused.

noworriesnate 4y ago
Sortition[1]. It's been tried before, with some success. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition
- pastacacioepepe 4y ago
  How are you going to work on long term plans with sortition? At least with vote elections if you are doing well you can be voted again to keep doing what you do.
  - lapcat 4y ago
    How are you going to work on long term plans with elections every 2 or 4 years? Every politician is always looking to the next election, not to the longer term. The lack of "next election" pressure gives sortition the advantage in looking to the future instead of the short term. Elections are what drive corruption and short term thinking.
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      > How are you going to work on long term plans with elections every 2 or 4 years? Oh I completely agree. I'm not in favor of the current system, more dubious of randomly picking rulers. If you look at efficiency, authocratic countries are working much better than democratic ones at the moment.
      - yladiz 4y ago
        It’s misleading because they seem to function better but in the long term they always have significant systemic issues due to the political system that are either nonexistent or minimized in a more democratic society.
      - gotorazor 4y ago
        If an autocratic country isn't doing well, how would you know? Who would loudly say anything? Please also note that many forms of non-democratic government. Some work better than others.
        pastacacioepepe 4y ago
        > If an autocratic country isn't doing well, how would you know? Who would loudly say anything? Protests and rebellions happen all the time, no matter how heavily autocratic a country is. You see this everywhere in the world, look at Iran where protesters are shot but keep protesting. Hell, just look at history, look at how much lives have been sacrificed on the altar of revolution. I don't believe that any autocracy could suppress discontent enough for the rest of the world to not know, if widely spread.
      - Tainnor 4y ago
        > If you look at efficiency, authocratic countries are working much better than democratic ones at the moment. Like Erdogan's Turkey where inflation is currently at 83%? Or Putin's Russia that can't even launch a successful military campaign against a supposedly weaker opponent? Or China who's unsuccessfully been trying to stamp out Covid for months now with brutal lockdowns harsher than anything that covid skepticists are talking about in the West? Or Venezuela? North Korea?
  - gotorazor 4y ago
    It doesn't. Sortition is more like random sampling of the overall population. The assumption is that those being sampled are already "qualified," since Athenian citizens only make up the top 10% of the population. And, anybody who gets picked usually has some kind of qualifying process after the lottery. Additionally, it is typically used for large bodies (like members of a legislature) rather than a single office (like a President.) This limits the damage any one single individual can make. I don't think the ancient Greeks believe in "Long Term Planning" in the way we believe it today. For that, you would have to believe in the "future" and "progress".
    - pastacacioepepe 4y ago
      I feel this could work if the "random rulers" would only work as administrators, legally required to follow a long term political plan that has been defined democratically with the population. I believe in both the future and progress, so a long term plan is required to me. Look at China and what they're accomplishing with their 2035 plan. I whish my country's politicians could think at least 15 years in the future when they legislate.
    - mcv 4y ago
      It's an interesting idea, but I think the more important part is ensuring that the candidates are qualified. Of course whoever decides on who's qualified or not will have a lot of power over the process. There needs to be some sort of objective measure to determine that, and that's going to be hard, and constantly subject to attempts to allow or ban popular controversial candidates. Personally I've been thinking if maybe it would be a good idea if everybody could both vote for someone, and against someone else. That way, the most controversial candidates would never be able to win. Athens had a slightly harsher system where people would vote to banish anyone who was deemed to have become too powerful. On the other hand, if the system is too moderating, it could become too conservative and it might become impossible to change the system once it's on a certain course; any popular newcomer who wants to address certain problems in the system would immediately be blocked by everybody who benefits from those problems.
  - amadeuspagel 4y ago
    Interesting point. One possible solution might be to replace the parliament gradually. Rather then having an election every four years, you might replace one member of parliament with a randomly choosen citizen every week.

rockbruno 4y ago

The problem with Brazil is that the country is just too big. It will never happen, but I'm confident that the solution to Brazil's rampant corruption and violence is to break up the country. In every single election it's clear that the north and the south are two completely different countries that keep getting into each other's way and preventing the country from evolving. I don't think it's a coincidence that the best countries in the world to live are geographically small. Large countries like Brazil/US/Russia have way too much stuff and people going on at the same time, it's impossible to manage them properly.

medo-bear 4y ago
sure. small countries are much more adept at asserting their independence against bigger countries. also breaking up a country is always a peaceful affair
- mcv 4y ago
  Breaking up a country is hardly a peaceful affair; it's almost impossible to do. But that doesn't change the fact that he has a point: large countries do seem to be harder to govern and develop effectively.
  - medo-bear 4y ago
    lets test the validity of his point by breaking up australia, canada, and maybe the united states
    - mcv 4y ago
      I've got the feeling Russia is first in line. Though admittedly some Americans also seem eager to try.
      - medo-bear 4y ago
        americans are eager to break up russia ? sure they probably think russia is on another planet

matheusmoreira 4y ago

> Brazil needs better candidates. A healthier political system where those better candidates rise to the top. Yes. I think one of the causes of the problem is the fact all the top level positions are appointed by the winning politicians. I have no doubt they purchase support from each other that way.