Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[shadenight123]

Democracy is flawed. We all know that.
Direct Democracy is possible, but refused upon the grounds that it would require to remove the current people in charge from their powerful positions.
And, furthermore, the majority is never always right.
You'd need something like a 'Council of Logical and Extremely Intelligent Gentlemen' chosen on their merits, not on their beautiful faces or honey-filled words.
Like, take the guys with the most high IQ, who have Masters and Degrees in specific areas of Economy and Engineering, or Mathematics, and make sure there is one of these 'super-smart guys' per nation.

There, problem solved.

Do people think about applying that? No. Why? Good question. I'm sure someone should have proposed this already.

[LordSlowpoke]

Democracy is flawed. We all know that.
Direct Democracy is possible, but refused upon the grounds that it would require to remove the current people in charge from their powerful positions.
And, furthermore, the majority is never always right.
You'd need something like a 'Council of Logical and Extremely Intelligent Gentlemen' chosen on their merits, not on their beautiful faces or honey-filled words.
Like, take the guys with the most high IQ, who have Masters and Degrees in specific areas of Economy and Engineering, or Mathematics, and make sure there is one of these 'super-smart guys' per nation.

There, problem solved.

Do people think about applying that? No. Why? Good question. I'm sure someone should have proposed this already.

what you are speaking of is referred to as a "government of experts" if i got the translation right and people in my nation's government have been outright saying it's reserved for emergencies because of political shenanigans, only having been introduced sometime in the late 80s

but that's anecdotal as all hell so take it with a grain of salt

[10ebbor10]

Germany only has 15% of EU's population. That's like saying that California would totally dominate the US (12% of population) if they switched to popular vote. Although I guess people identify with their country more than within their states.

Okay, it would give total domination to the 4 largest states : Germany, France, the UK, and Italy., who have almost half the EU's population between them.

Which might be a harder sell in many of the smaller states. Currently most operates on a basis of consensus, which optimal either.

[Sheb]

It gives domination to a majority of the people. The only problem I could see is that all European presidents or whatever would come from one of the big state, like how Presidents in the US tend to come from a battleground state. With the adde dproblem that due to the language barrier, a Pole cannot just spend 2 years in France and present himself as french.

Which is why I support electing the current president, making Van Rompuy'sjob up for grabs. Its powerless enough that having big countries control it ain't too much of a problem, but eye-grabbing enough to get people to think of politic as something European.

[Loud Whispers]

At least skynet operates on logic, hence it can be reasoned with.

Skynet logically came to the conclusion that humanity would try to destroy it, so skynet nuked all of humanity.

[Reasoning intensifies with the force of a thousand suns]

[10ebbor10]

Which is why I support electing the current president, making Van Rompuy'sjob up for grabs. Its powerless enough that having big countries control it ain't too much of a problem, but eye-grabbing enough to get people to think of politic as something European.

Problem is, the job of the president of the EU is not that of a conventional president, nor is it that of a figurehead. It's that of a diplomat, someone who needs to try and get 28 countries on one line. He has to bring order to the respective leaders of all those countries.

You don't want to put a high profie politician there, you want the grey mouse, that nobody knows.

[Dutchling]

Which is why I support electing the current president, making Van Rompuy'sjob up for grabs. Its powerless enough that having big countries control it ain't too much of a problem, but eye-grabbing enough to get people to think of politic as something European.

Problem is, the job of the president of the EU is not that of a conventional president, nor is it that of a figurehead. It's that of a diplomat, someone who needs to try and get 28 countries on one line. He has to bring order to the respective leaders of all those countries.

You don't want to put a high profie politician there, you want the grey mouse, that nobody knows.

I agree. I also doubt anyone would care about the election unless the candidates can spend fortunes on election campaigns in every EU country.

[Sheb]

We have trans-European parties that have the funds and network to promote their candidate all over Europe.

But yeah, you got a point there 10ebbor. Elected head of the Commission maybe?

[10ebbor10]

We have trans-European parties that have the funds and network to promote their candidate all over Europe.

But yeah, you got a point there 10ebbor. Elected head of the Commission maybe?

Those parties get their funds of the EU. As is customary for almost all elections in most European countries.

Maybe. It's kinda a democratic election already, as the Head of the Commission is elected by the popularly elected parliament. So I suppose we could change that without to much problems.

[hector13]

Democracy is flawed. We all know that.
Direct Democracy is possible, but refused upon the grounds that it would require to remove the current people in charge from their powerful positions.
And, furthermore, the majority is never always right.
You'd need something like a 'Council of Logical and Extremely Intelligent Gentlemen' chosen on their merits, not on their beautiful faces or honey-filled words.
Like, take the guys with the most high IQ, who have Masters and Degrees in specific areas of Economy and Engineering, or Mathematics, and make sure there is one of these 'super-smart guys' per nation.

There, problem solved.

Do people think about applying that? No. Why? Good question. I'm sure someone should have proposed this already.

This misses out on a key point: human nature. Just because you happen to be smart, doesn't mean you're the best person for a job. Someone might have knowledge, but if they don't have the wisdom/ethics/morality to put it to good use, are they necessarily any better at running a country than someone who hasn't been to university for years? An example of this would be the founder of the Virgin Group, Richard Branson, of whom it is always pointed out left school with no A-levels.

This also rules out the vast majority of people for being in a position to influence politics because not everyone has the means or ability (or should I say patience?) to go through compulsory education and then go on to complete a degree course, a masters course and a phd course. One of the appealing things about democracy is that anyone can stand for a position in government.

Admittedly I'm taking this from a leftist standpoint, I believe everyone is equal irrespective of education, money etc. so the idea irks me a little. Although I'm very critical of democracy, it's probably the best form of government we've got right now. It just needs some safeguards, like being able to petition for someone's removal should they prove to be ineffective or corrupt.

In saying that, I'm all for minimum intelligence tests, or at least something to stop ignorant people like this standing for elections.

[10ebbor10]

Besides, IQ doesn't mean smart. These tests can be easily manipulated.

Also, requiring PhD's and such can also be problematic. There's a huge difference between universities.

[Eagle_eye]

What we really ought to have is a board of scientists on hand to do live fact checking during elections. A lot of what politicians say, especially the corporate mouthpieces, is either deliberately misleading or just plain wrong.

[10ebbor10]

What we really ought to have is a board of scientists on hand to do live fact checking during elections. A lot of what politicians say, especially the corporate mouthpieces, is either deliberately misleading or just plain wrong.

But then you got to pay those guys too. Belgium had a wild-growth of these commissions for a while. I mean, until a short time  ago, we still had an advisories commission for Colonial Congo.

[Owlbread]

Do Congolese people speak French with a Belgian-influenced accent?

[10ebbor10]

There's no significant difference between Belgian French and French French.

So, I guess there isn't.