4 ms·

Don't reboot the system, rewrite it. Instead of a representative government most western countries suffer, switch to democracy. I mean, democracy. Where the

Don't reboot the system, rewrite it. Instead of a representative government most western countries suffer, switch to democracy. I mean, democracy. Where the people decide for their rules directly. Where real democratic processes such as random trials are used, instead elections which by nature are heavily influenced by a tiny elite. Where the constitution itself is not written by those who will later rule the country (that's such an obvious conflict of interest). Good luck, though.

mtgx 13y ago
Keep the representative system, but add a ton of direct democracy influences to it. You can even take real world examples from countries like Germany or Finland, I believe, where the citizens can create their own bills, and then pass them through a referendum. It doesn't need to be 100% democracy, and it doesn't need to be 80-90% representative like US, either. It definitely needs to be a lot more towards direct democracy than it is in US now. Also another huge problem that needs to be fixed in US, is making sure the incredibly skewed "money vote" is drastically reduced, by only allowing people to donate $100 per voter at an election, and no anonymous donations anymore. Votes are supposed to be equal, but this alternative money vote system, created by lobbying in US, has really compromised to the point that you can almost discard the real vote system. When 70% of the voters want decision A vs decision B, but 90% of the donors want decision B, in the vast majority of cases the politicians go with decision B - because they were basically paid to do it. But what's worse is that 90% of the funds usually comes from only a handful of people - therefore the incredibly skewed system. At least with $100 cap you can equalize it a lot.
- khuey 13y ago
  I think the state of California is a pretty good counter-example to the purported benefits of increased direct democracy.
  - nitrogen 13y ago
    As I understand it, one of the problems with California's referendum system is that there's no built-in requirement to fund the initiatives. A referendum system might work better if every initiative had to provide for its own funding, and/or the state constitution required a balanced budget.
    - cpeterso 13y ago
      <Insert obligatory comment about bread and circuses>
- nitrogen 13y ago
  I think a representative system where we select representatives based on area of influence rather than geography could work well, with the option to override our representative's vote on our behalf on specific issues.
crusso 13y ago
The Democracy vs the representative Republicanism are irrelevant. What matters is that we have a massive unelected bureaucracy that is its own ulta-powerful branch of the government that sucks money and makes its own laws.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Well, actual democracy does start by writing a constitution¹ by mostly randomly selected people who will forbid themselves to exert any meaningful further influence on the system. That should address the bureaucracy problem. [1]: I mean a constitution, not a set of super-laws such as the Bill of Rights. Something that state how political institutions should operate (Executive, legislative, judiciary, monetary, and the media).
  - crusso 13y ago
    Well, we don't have as complete a constitution as you specified, but I think we've pretty much proven that a constitution doesn't just enforce itself. It's like introducing a constitution and elections to Afghanistan. They don't mean anything without the culture or "civil society" to back them up.
talmand 13y ago
True democracy is a far worse sort of government than a representative republic because it is essentially mob rule. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." -said by somebody
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  Ancient Athens was not mob rule, as far as I know.
  - brewdad 13y ago
    It was a much more homogenous mob than what we have in the US today, but it was still a mob. As for citizen referendums, look no further than California to see the outcome of this "direct democracy". It still suffers from the Golden Rule, he who has the gold makes the rules.
kunai 13y ago
"Democracy is little more than mob rule." -- Thomas Jefferson When more than half the country has an IQ of less than 100, democracy is deeply, deeply flawed. The only way to properly reimplement government is to replace corrupt representatives with trustworthy ones, and offer a voice and most importantly, CHOICE.
- loup-vaillant 13y ago
  So, an elite should rule, because the general population is too dumb to rule itself. I'm not sure the premise is true, but I can respect the argument. The problem is, how can the system tell the corrupt from the trustworthy? Certainly not with elections: (i) it didn't work, (ii) voters are too poorly informed, and (iii) if the people are too dumb to be trusted with policies, how can they be trusted with their vote? Recursing back a little, what we really want is a friendly, competent, powerful, and stable governance. That pose a number of problems: we don't know what "friendly" really means, competence is hard to come by, and power is wickedly dangerous if the first criteria are not satisfied.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

mtgx 13y ago

Keep the representative system, but add a ton of direct democracy influences to it. You can even take real world examples from countries like Germany or Finland, I believe, where the citizens can create their own bills, and then pass them through a referendum. It doesn't need to be 100% democracy, and it doesn't need to be 80-90% representative like US, either. It definitely needs to be a lot more towards direct democracy than it is in US now. Also another huge problem that needs to be fixed in US, is making sure the incredibly skewed "money vote" is drastically reduced, by only allowing people to donate $100 per voter at an election, and no anonymous donations anymore. Votes are supposed to be equal, but this alternative money vote system, created by lobbying in US, has really compromised to the point that you can almost discard the real vote system. When 70% of the voters want decision A vs decision B, but 90% of the donors want decision B, in the vast majority of cases the politicians go with decision B - because they were basically paid to do it. But what's worse is that 90% of the funds usually comes from only a handful of people - therefore the incredibly skewed system. At least with $100 cap you can equalize it a lot.

khuey 13y ago
I think the state of California is a pretty good counter-example to the purported benefits of increased direct democracy.
- nitrogen 13y ago
  As I understand it, one of the problems with California's referendum system is that there's no built-in requirement to fund the initiatives. A referendum system might work better if every initiative had to provide for its own funding, and/or the state constitution required a balanced budget.
  - cpeterso 13y ago
    <Insert obligatory comment about bread and circuses>
nitrogen 13y ago
I think a representative system where we select representatives based on area of influence rather than geography could work well, with the option to override our representative's vote on our behalf on specific issues.

crusso 13y ago

The Democracy vs the representative Republicanism are irrelevant. What matters is that we have a massive unelected bureaucracy that is its own ulta-powerful branch of the government that sucks money and makes its own laws.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Well, actual democracy does start by writing a constitution¹ by mostly randomly selected people who will forbid themselves to exert any meaningful further influence on the system. That should address the bureaucracy problem. [1]: I mean a constitution, not a set of super-laws such as the Bill of Rights. Something that state how political institutions should operate (Executive, legislative, judiciary, monetary, and the media).
- crusso 13y ago
  Well, we don't have as complete a constitution as you specified, but I think we've pretty much proven that a constitution doesn't just enforce itself. It's like introducing a constitution and elections to Afghanistan. They don't mean anything without the culture or "civil society" to back them up.

talmand 13y ago

True democracy is a far worse sort of government than a representative republic because it is essentially mob rule. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." -said by somebody

loup-vaillant 13y ago
Ancient Athens was not mob rule, as far as I know.
- brewdad 13y ago
  It was a much more homogenous mob than what we have in the US today, but it was still a mob. As for citizen referendums, look no further than California to see the outcome of this "direct democracy". It still suffers from the Golden Rule, he who has the gold makes the rules.

kunai 13y ago

"Democracy is little more than mob rule." -- Thomas Jefferson When more than half the country has an IQ of less than 100, democracy is deeply, deeply flawed. The only way to properly reimplement government is to replace corrupt representatives with trustworthy ones, and offer a voice and most importantly, CHOICE.

loup-vaillant 13y ago
So, an elite should rule, because the general population is too dumb to rule itself. I'm not sure the premise is true, but I can respect the argument. The problem is, how can the system tell the corrupt from the trustworthy? Certainly not with elections: (i) it didn't work, (ii) voters are too poorly informed, and (iii) if the people are too dumb to be trusted with policies, how can they be trusted with their vote? Recursing back a little, what we really want is a friendly, competent, powerful, and stable governance. That pose a number of problems: we don't know what "friendly" really means, competence is hard to come by, and power is wickedly dangerous if the first criteria are not satisfied.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]