4 ms·
> Because elections are a poor way to elect competent people, overall? Better than anything else we've tried. I could mention Pol Pot and I could mention the
by derleth 14y ago
> Because elections are a poor way to elect competent people, overall?
Better than anything else we've tried.
I could mention Pol Pot and I could mention the Soviet Union and so on, but I won't. All I'll say is, "When you fuck up a system of government, the results get bloody extremely fast."
- waveman2 14y agoElections are the least worst system so far, but they are far from optimal. In effect what we get is "second rate people recruiting third rate people". If you have ever had anything to do with the general public you will realize the average person is pretty stupid. That is why they so easily fall for all the lies politicians tell. In particular the public consistently votes for deficit spending and the accumulation of unsustainable debt, short sighted policies and policies based on emotion rather than reason. We need to find some way to skew the legislature towards people who are honest, and who are more than fast talking lawyers - people committed to rationality and sustainable policies.
- hcarvalhoalves 14y ago> Better than anything else we've tried. Is it really better? Or is the one people chose because it favors inertia and doesn't force them to think?
- derleth 14y ago> Is it really better? Or is the one people chose because it favors inertia and doesn't force them to think? There's never been a system tried that forced people to think any more than democracy does. All the other systems actively discourage some kind of thought, in fact, usually at gunpoint.