democratic reforms: direct election

[Atahualpa]

Lately, I thought about wether it's a good idea to have direct elections on the cabinet. Somehow I don't really like all this party-stuff, it's so bloated and I think this is dragging down.
I'd reduce parties and parliament to have more of a control functionality than actually form governments.

What if, for every ressort you can directly elect someone? Would a government that is "casted" together that way be more effective than one that is appointed by parties?

The advantage I see is that you could appoint a conservative finance minister, a liberal guy for interior affairs or simply keep the guy that has done a good job last time, though you don't agree so much with him.

The disadvantage ofc is that you've got less harmony and voters need to educate themselves more (okay, that's not really a bad thing )

[Gangerolf]

yeah, awesome with 10% voter turn-out

[Ecthy]

Ganger, why, they'd vote faces.

As for the idea, hooray for a new Hitler!

[Gangerolf]

it's easier to just vote for one party than to vote for 10-15-whatever cabinet posts. a lot of people would probably just vote for 3 or 4 and skip the "boring" posts. just wildly speculating here, of course.

[Ecthy]

Nah, this way they could vote directly for teh Hitler.

[duke o' york]

I think that proportional representation would be a great idea, but unfortunately the only 2 parties ever likely to win a British election do not.
I do agree that if the populace were to vote for the cabinet, then they'd probably end up choosing a bunch of people heavy on presentation, but light on decent policies and tough, unpopular decisions, whatever the potential benefit.
As Plato said in his Republic, the trouble with democracy is that it gives the stupid an equal say. But as Churchill (almost) said, it knocks all other forms of government into a cocked hat.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Gangerolf
it's easier to just vote for one party than to vote for 10-15-whatever cabinet posts. a lot of people would probably just vote for 3 or 4 and skip the "boring" posts. just wildly speculating here, of course.

And when you vote for the party, you know that the MPs of the party you voted for will follow the platform of the party you voted for, unlike in the US where we have to trust individual politicians that can change thier mind as a result of poor party dicipline.

[Odin]

Originally posted by duke o' york

As Plato said in his Republic, the trouble with democracy is that it gives the stupid an equal say. But as Churchill (almost) said, it knocks all other forms of government into a cocked hat.

QFT

the "stupid people getting an equal say" is the main reason I am anti-populist. Living in a country where 80% of people think Creationism is true, I don't give a damn about popular opinion. Call me elitest scum if you want, But if you think that opinion polls should trump facts when it comes to determining policy, you are a fool.

[Spiffor]

Elitist scum

[Ecthy]

Any system encouraging hard work and performing on a high level

Direct democracy

[Spiffor]

And what Gangerolf said: the problem with direct democracy is that it requires more effort from the citizenry. It requires to acquire more information, to vote more often, on topics/people that are of very tiny interest.

Political parties, for all their flaws, have the benefit of simplifying the political game enough that politics become accessible to the masses. In a direct democracy such as the one you suggest, there would actually be less people who would seize their opportunity to decide policy, and policy would be decided by a class of more educated people, who have more time and do a less exhausting job, thus making them more prone to be involved in politics.

[Ecthy]

what is QFT?

[Spiffor]

"Quoted for Truth"

[Az]

Direct Democracy can work through technology. Just imagine everyone carrying an always-online palm computer, onto which the questions will be SMSed.

The future

[C0ckney]

/me mugs az for his on-line palm computer