Democracy: Success or Failure

[Drogue]

Originally posted by C0ckney
oh good lord, now we've got someone arguing for 'enlightend' despotism

More for democracy but with longer terms. Like 10 years, rather than 4. I don't see why a democratically elected leader is necessarily any better chosen than one that isn't. I think a council of elected people could choose a better ruler than the people as a whole, kinda going with what the US Founding Fathers said.

[Q Classic]

compared to life under my rule, it's a failure. compared to everything else, it's a success.

[Spiffor]

I too agree with longer terms. Most terms are way too short for any long-term planning, and as such, the politicians are reduced to more or less a role of managers of the country.

In the US, the situation is even worse with major elections every two years, making the political elite being in a campaign almost 100% of the time.

However, unlike Drogue, I don't believe at all in a technocracy. Who gets to decide who is "able" or not? Who gets to write the tests any would be ruler would have to pass?
I can't know the names, but I can already tell you these would be biased people, with their own perception of what's true and what's right (for example, the test might include questions on economic science, showing the bias of the testers in believing there is any truth in economic science).

If we are to have biased people to choose our rulers, let these biased people be everyone

OTOH, despite being in favor of longer terms, I'm strongly in favor of a massive use of referenda. In today's world, referenda are the only way to really associate the people to their collective fate.

[C0ckney]

but that misses the point, it's not (and shouldn't be) about who would do the job best, but who the people want to do the job. i like short term limits because they let the people have their say more often, which can only be a good thing.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by C0ckney
but that misses the point, it's not (and shouldn't be) about who would do the job best, but who the people want to do the job.

This is where I disagree. Democracy should only marginally be about who does the job. It should first and foremost be about what the job is.
In today's democracy, the people only have a say about who gets the job. They don't have a direct say on what are the objectives and the decisions to be taken, except in the reare occurences of the referenda.

[CerberusIV]

Democracy is the best of an imperfect range of options. It would be better if politicians were strictly liable for their pre-election promises and were thrown out of office if they didn't deliver those promises within the timescale they said they would.

[Patroklos]

Hey,

Democracy is okay, but like most thinks that are good in theory we muck up in practice. Mass elections are what mess up democracy. Ie, nobody wants to do what is good for the state as a whole, but what is good for them. Hence we end up with welfare states and special interests.

The solution, which was actually in the original theory of all the modern democracies, is reduced electorate. Sufferage is free, and thus by definition worthless. I personely believe government service is needed to vote. Not just military, but any government service. I am not saying that everyone else is crap, they have all the rights under the law except the ability to vote. And why should they, they decided to stay in the private sector and work soley for their own benefit. Most governemt employees could be making alot more money in the private sectoer (ie me, so maybe I am biased ), so besides some of the more patriotic reasons people serve, they also take a finacial hit. The catch, there has to be some form of service available to everyone so that if they want to serve they can. Just expand the reserves. Of course the years of service required would depend on the job.

This could be implememted in many ways. Doctors voluntarily charging government regualted resticted charges ofr patiets for so many years to get sufferage. Many more experianced pubilc defenders. And if these people don't want to take the career or financial hit, well obviosly if you only care about yourself you shouldn't be voting. How about having a list of approved volunteer and charity networks, and make bieng a member of one of these a prerequisite as well. We could make the board that decite these things be both voters and non-voters, so we don't get a tyranny. And remember, the largest contibuter to voters would be the enlisted military and service government funcions like postal, police and fire. These are not the rich folks.

Point bieng we need to reduce the electorite, but the means most original democratic thinkers advocated were not adequate, ie race, sex, class, etc. I don't hold this against them, they were from a different time and in the theories infancy. I think merit and service are much better choices to divide the voting/non-voting population.

True democracy, with its mass voting or Repubic style, just can't work in societies as large as ours. Athens found this out and they ran only a city, and not even with true mass voting!

Just an idea, I think if we wish to preserve democracy we have to be inovative. Democracy has to chage, just like everything else.

-Pat

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
It would be better if politicians were strictly liable for their pre-election promises and were thrown out of office if they didn't deliver those promises within the timescale they said they would.

It is a possible option, but it was rejected in the 18-19th century when the political elite were crafting the system. The liberal democracies we live in have similar arguments than today's calls for technocracy: it believed the people was unable to rule itself effectively, and that's why we ended up being free of choosing our rulers, but certainly not our policies.

[Whaleboy]

I second Drogue.

I mean a technocracy to mean government run by a computer (and me having written the programme ). Seriously, the programs would be elected, though you can of course remove democracy with a technologicla dictator, democracy does have certain advantage, particularly when it's as ambiguous as possible.

Say you have an economic decision? Whose opinion do you value more? A prominent economist, or the consensus of a million lay people? I choose the former.

[Sandman]

Democracy is great. Just look at the Borg.

[rah]

Originally posted by Patroklos
The solution, which was actually in the original theory of all the modern democracies, is reduced electorate. Sufferage is free, and thus by definition worthless. I personely believe government service is needed to vote. Not just military, but any government service.

Sorry I had to laugh. If you did this, the government would pander to...............the government. What politician would ever propose reducing government? Government would spiral out of control as it continued to feed itself more and more pork.
The government would becomes it's own aristocracy, where everyone not in it would become second class.

I don't think that is the answer, but thanks for brightening my day.

[Whaleboy]

Gotta agree with rah there.

We also need far more open government.... open source technocracy!!

[aaglo]

Worst is the government which is based on popularity of the people. - Pierre Corneille

According to the democrats, justice is to do what is good for the majority - Aristoteles

[Andemagne]

failure. the most Wise should rule.

[Az]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Diss:
Technocracy is a regime where unelected people get to power through passing tests. What is required is not being elected by the people, but to have the skills deemed necessary to rule a country.

Technocracy is not necessarily a police state. As a matter of fact, the only blatant technocracy that I'm aware of (the EU) is stringent on human rights. It simply doesn't associate the people at all in the political process. The actors of the political process are those the most skilled for it, according to their view.

I second Drogue.

I mean a technocracy to mean government run by a computer (and me having written the programme ). Seriously, the programs would be elected, though you can of course remove democracy with a technologicla dictator, democracy does have certain advantage, particularly when it's as ambiguous as possible.

Say you have an economic decision? Whose opinion do you value more? A prominent economist, or the consensus of a million lay people? I choose the former.

I am a technocrat. But I am at the same time a democrat. How is it possible? I believe that by educating all the people in a fair level of knowledge that is needed to make decisions, as well as having very intellingent, and knowledgeable people decide. those people will be elected, however.

The technocracy will allow for greater efficiency, while strong democratic rules will ensure that this will benefit all of society.