Print

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

[Phmcw]

You and I can vote on principles, but not on technicalities, that's the problem. It should be noted that neither can a lot of politician, but that's due to us having a system way too rigid.

Shadenight, your idea is good, but we'll still need elections for the executive, and we'll need peoples writing those laws. Another problem will be important but obscure laws, and the amount of times we'll need to vote. And to make an informed decision every times.

[palsch]

Real world problems aren't that simple though.

Let's say we want to pass some legislation to deal with climate change. One of the proposed measures is an increased tax on petrol.

Who gets privileged status here?

Climatologists who can understand the dangers and reality of climate change?
Economists who can assess the effects of such a tax?
Drivers who will have to pay the tax?
Oil industry workers and executives who will see their industry effected?

I'd also add that, as a Masters of Physics holder, I have none of your confidence in degrees as an assessment of how qualified someone is to speak to the public aspects of even their area of training. Actually getting involved in public decision making requires a lot more specialised focus than general training, and actually gets in the way of gaining detailed experience within your field.

[RedKing]

For those of you with children, let them vote on what they get for dinner for a week. See how you like your mac-n-cheese and Skittles.

Is this a paternalistic, slightly condescending attitude? Yes.
Elitist? Yes.
Absolutely justified, based on an understanding of history? Yes.

Let majority-rule direct democracy set the rules, and within a month the tax rate would be set to 0% and the government would pay for everything. And then many people would be flabbergasted when the government went broke and blame "the bureaucrats". Hell, look at our current situation! We're running a hude deficit because we enacted a big tax cut several years ago, then fought two major wars and bailed out Wall Street. But half the people in the country still think the problem is "too much money spent on social services". Not their $300 "rebate check", not the lower taxes they're paying, not the corporate greed, not the inflated Pentagon and DHS budgets...no, it must be those lazy, greedy poor people. 

[Truean]

Well hell, I'm biased, but if you only have doctors making decisions about medicine, then maybe you should have lawyers making decisions about law?

Like, you have to be a lawyer to be elected? Hell, if you're going to make law, you should understand it.... Also, perhaps be subject to disbarment if you really screw up. A la, Clinton, who was in trouble for the lying as an attorney.

I've actually been thinking about that lately for some reason. My own thoughts lean toward requiring whatever the law school equivalent of a 3.5 GPA would be (possibly the same thing, I don't know) and setting up large amounts of public assistance for law school to prevent it from become a trick to bias things significantly toward the wealthy. Then probably something about experience working in government-related areas of law and demonstration of acceptably ethical practices, and maybe if you can figure out sufficient guidelines for what would qualify as exemplary professional behavior let that override the school requirements so that you're not forever shackled to a single number that can't be changed. And don't grandfather in current office-holders, but have a 10 year delay between passage and the system going into effect.

This is, of course, completely implausible, and no doubt full of unforeseen consequences and general dumbness. Still, fantasy scenarios are nice sometimes.

The only problem I have with this is the "law school GPA requirement," as GPA in law school is totally BS, because law school teaches you absolutely nothing at all. I learned everything I did through interning four years straight under an attorney, watching actual court cases open to the public. I've had good and bad semesters in law school, including a 4.0 GPA one semester. I enjoy grilling law professors and making them sweat on how terrible of a job they do. It is a hobby of mine and the only reason I attend alumni events at all. They know this and not to expect a dime from me ever.

Thus, due only to my experience outside school, I was actually practicing right out of law school, whereas most graduates, without the slightest exaggeration, do not know where the courthouse is or what to do there. I will not hire a law school grad with a high GPA until and unless they convince me they know what they are doing while I mercilessly bust their chops and actively attempt to make them cry. This is due solely to the high GPA. I'm serious, as our current clerk is quite useless and thinks she's the shit while I end up doing her job because she's incompetent. She loves to spout off about her 3.9 GPA and I love to ask her simple questions she should know but does not have a clue about. Most of them are quite worthless and expect to be paid while I teach them their head from their ass.

It is for this reason that I am adamantly against the ABA, refuse to join it, and pay it no heed. Same thing with my law school alumni association. I am fully for the ABA setting itself on fire and dying as the useless thing it is.

I do applaud you for the thought though, especially the part about how it's biased towards the rich. Too many times have I seen people there because their daddy owns a firm. They are typically the most useless of all.

The way I see it, you tick a box next to a law on the voting site. You can tick it or untick it at any time. A law stands as long as it has over 50% ticks from the total eligible voter base. Well, maybe make it 55% to go in effect and 45% to cease, so it doesn't rapidly flip-flop at certain points in time.

And the laws which are unpopular but necessary?

You convince the voters that they're necessary, and point out the them the bad things that are occurring because these laws are not in place.

And if the public refuses to see reason as they often do?  I like the idea, but frankly, eh. People don't like speed limits, because they get tickets. Perhaps they should be changed as far as the actual speed limited but without them, people will cause accidents and people will die/get seriously injured. People get really pissed behind the wheel in this country as they are all in a big damn hurry to get anywhere. They would happily do 100 MPH or max out their car's speed if they could. The German model wouldn't work here. I don't trust people on the roads driving as fast as they do now. The first flake of snow means they all forget how to drive here and you see them in the ditch at the side of the road. Now imagine if they were doing 110 MPH instead of 70.... Yeah.

The very reason we have laws, is because PEOPLE CAN'T agree. It'd be lovely if they could, but they can't, or at least they don't. No one EVER admits they are wrong in court until and unless they are convinced they have 0 chance and even then they just blame the law as being unjust. Because, nothing... nothing at all... is their fault.

RedKing gets it.

[kaijyuu]

I just have a problem with

Code: [Select]

spread lies and propaganda -> brainwashed masses elect your candidate -> candidate tries to further your agendabeing shortened to

Code: [Select]

spread lies and propaganda -> brainwashed masses write the laws
I'm sure you can see the problem.

Implying that candidates cannot also be brainwashed by lies and propaganda?

All I'm saying is it's not really all that much different, at least in terms of stupid and misinformed decisions. Having politicians does roughly squat to mitigate that.



What it DOES do is make things vastly more efficient. Have someone dedicated to writing/passing laws and we don't have to bother. The amount of time it takes to get a law from conception -> passed is vastly reduced the less people you have making decisions. Bring it down to one (dictator) and you can have an extremely efficient and effective government... just hope you have Jesus or better in the position (ha!).

[ChairmanPoo]

Oh, please, not the "Only smart people should be allowed to vote" discussion again.

[Truean]

Oh, please, not the "Only smart people should be allowed to vote" discussion again.

No, but perhaps to govern people should know something....

[Nadaka]

What it DOES do is make things vastly more efficient. Have someone dedicated to writing/passing laws and we don't have to bother. The amount of time it takes to get a law from conception -> passed is vastly reduced the less people you have making decisions. Bring it down to one (dictator) and you can have an extremely efficient and effective government... just hope you have Jesus or better in the position (ha!).

My reign as supreme benevolent overlord would change the world for the better, bring peace, prosperity and justice. I would also have to crush my enemies and hang on to power as long as possible because no one else could be trusted to not abuse their absolute power to crush their enemies and hang on to power as long as possible.

[RedKing]

I just have a problem with

Code: [Select]

spread lies and propaganda -> brainwashed masses elect your candidate -> candidate tries to further your agendabeing shortened to

Code: [Select]

spread lies and propaganda -> brainwashed masses write the laws
I'm sure you can see the problem.

Implying that candidates cannot also be brainwashed by lies and propaganda?

All I'm saying is it's not really all that much different, at least in terms of stupid and misinformed decisions. Having politicians does roughly squat to mitigate that.



What it DOES do is make things vastly more efficient. Have someone dedicated to writing/passing laws and we don't have to bother. The amount of time it takes to get a law from conception -> passed is vastly reduced the less people you have making decisions. Bring it down to one (dictator) and you can have an extremely efficient and effective government... just hope you have Jesus or better in the position (ha!).

As a bit of a counterpoint to that...efficiency is kind of important in a crisis. Should we hold a national quorum on how much disaster relief aid to send to New Orleans the next time a hurricane hits? On where to deploy (or even whether to deploy) a carrier battle group if the shit hits the fan in the Taiwan Straits? Having a unified executive authority is a big part of what Madison was seeing in the difference between Athens and Rome. And the Athenian model just doesn't work. For one thing, you find that you're stuck in a never-ending emergency state either because of ineffectual mismanagement.

Look at the Occupy Movement. Yes, what they've done was fairly impressive at first, when it was fueled by grassroots activism and largely unopposed. Now that it's run into organized, systematic opposition, it's grinding its wheels because nobody is in charge. You wind up with a lot of people sitting around waiting to be told what to do next, and/or a number of people all having their own "great idea" and then insisting that the group adopt *their* idea. Oh look, you're back to politics.

[shadenight123]

What it DOES do is make things vastly more efficient. Have someone dedicated to writing/passing laws and we don't have to bother. The amount of time it takes to get a law from conception -> passed is vastly reduced the less people you have making decisions. Bring it down to one (dictator) and you can have an extremely efficient and effective government... just hope you have Jesus or better in the position (ha!).

My reign as supreme benevolent overlord would change the world for the better, bring peace, prosperity and justice. I would also have to crush my enemies and hang on to power as long as possible because no one else could be trusted to not abuse their absolute power to crush their enemies and hang on to power as long as possible.

you know, that's my exact same identical thought.
let's split up, i grab europe, you can take russia and america.

[Virex]

Oh, please, not the "Only smart people should be allowed to vote" discussion again.

No, but perhaps to govern people should know something....

Hmm? I thought democracy was axiomatic? You can't simultaneously have a democratic system and demand that the people do a specific thing, as that demand in itself is a denial of the democratic principle that the people know best. You are, after all, saying that your opinion that people should educate themselves is more important than the general opinion (or else the majority would have educated itself already)

[Frumple]

No, but perhaps to govern people should know something....

I do feel that a little bit higher barrier of entry would be nice, some days. I think in my lifetime the area I'm in has had two known (as in drunk-in-public-on-multiple-occasions) alcoholics and one illiterate fellow elected to public office, as a sort of example. One of the drunkards was elected mayor. Kicked out (or resigned, don't quite remember which) part way through his term, but freaking still.

Problem being that it'd bias governorship (even more) toward the rich, at least so long as education isn't publicly funded all the way through. Representatives being from a social class completely disconnected from the people they're supposed to be representing (and unwilling to attempt, in good faith, to bridge that lack of understanding)  is already a huge g'damn problem in the states.

Maybe you should be forced to live for a minimum of two-five years on the income of your poorest constituency, just to let what that's like sink in for folks that think a low household income is 120k a year.

[Max White]

Hmm? I thought democracy was axiomatic? You can't simultaneously have a democratic system and demand that the people do a specific thing, as that demand in itself is a denial of the democratic principle.

Starship troopers, but replace military service with a university degree.

[shadenight123]

another thing i always wanted to propose is this:
governments should have every public office payed a salary identical to the least payed salary in the country.
if a plumber gets, to say, 500 euros per month, than even if you are in the senate, even if you are the friggin president, your salary is of 500 euros.
you still get travels payed, and food payed, and government expenses, but those are made public, and you have to SHOW them to the people.

[Virex]

Hmm? I thought democracy was axiomatic? You can't simultaneously have a democratic system and demand that the people do a specific thing, as that demand in itself is a denial of the democratic principle.

Starship troopers, but replace military service with a university degree.

In that case, the majority would have to vote for that, but from the assumption that the majority people need to educate themselves better, one can automatically deduce that that isn't going to happen.

another thing i always wanted to propose is this:
governments should have every public office payed a salary identical to the least payed salary in the country.
if a plumber gets, to say, 500 euros per month, than even if you are in the senate, even if you are the friggin president, your salary is of 500 euros.
you still get travels payed, and food payed, and government expenses, but those are made public, and you have to SHOW them to the people.

So an IT specialist working on a new tracking system for the police, or scientists working for institutions like DARPA would only get the salary of a part-time waiter? Or am I misinterpreting the word 'public office'?