Print

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

[GlyphGryph]

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.

You can very much have such a system. We have such a system. Australia has such a system but EVEN MORE SO.

(In our system, you need to vote in order to have a say. In the australian system, you just need to vote)

I think having a system that selects those more likely to have some idea what they're talking about to work out the details of legislation and handle putting things together is not a bad thing. Technically, that's the whole point of what a representative democracy is supposed to be. Otherwise, we might as well just legislate by lottery and have done with elections all together.

Right now, you only get a say in government if you are charistmatic and/or wealthy enough enough to get elected. I could see some other criteria being superior.

[MonkeyHead]

Thing is, being voted into power should come with a selection effect of only "decent" folk (decent - ymmv) get elected. The probelm is that those seeking power will say pretty much anything to get it, from baseless promises to "pandering to the fears of the great unwashed"-type statements. This of course leads to the inevitable conclusion that "most people" are idiots. Wasn't it Churchill who said that the biggest argument against democracy was a 5 min chat with the average voter? Although I also think he said that "Democracy was the worst form of government, other than those other forms that are tried from time to time"...

Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutley.

[RedKing]

Three problems with the "ridiculously low pay for elected officials" idea:

1. There are already CEO's who make $1 annual salary. (and $10 million in various other perks that don't count as "pay", so they can say with a straight face that they only make a dollar a year and are doing it out of dedication to the company.)
2. Nobody worth a damn is going to want the job if it really does pay that low.
3. Corruption. There are numerous countries where the lower-ranking elected officials really do get shitty pay (Nigeria, China, Russia all come to mind). To them, this then justifies using their power to extort bribes out of the people they're supposed to be serving. Also, if you're only making shit for pay, it's all that much easier for someone to buy you off. Necessity trumps morality almost every time.

[GlyphGryph]

Which is why good democracies try to insure that no individual or small group of individuals gets absolute power. Checks and balances for the win!

Admittedly, I'm not a big fan of our current democratic methodology. But I'm sure I've talked about my preferred alternatives more than enough, and it seems like no one is interested anyways, so I won't bother bringing them up again.

Hey, RedKing - How about this:
Elected officials get paid very highly while in office, and get a stipend for the rest of their lives after (amount depending on position), but agree to a capped wealth and income (from all sources, with the full force of the law, say 200k in our current situation) for the rest of their lives.

Then you've got an incentive for good people to get into politics and do good work, and get rewarded with it, while at the same time heavily discouraging the incredibly ambitious and making the appeal of bribery and corruption and obscene wealth notably weaker. Those who get into government will be those who prefer reliability of income and reasonable rewards rather than oodles of cash and industry connections that can be used to earn more. The rich can still run, obviously, they just need to be content to give most of their earnings to charity when they win and forevermore afterwards.

[shadenight123]

for public offices i kind of meant only those in the senate/parliament/the president.
and to avoid corruption, you simply have them tailed by tax collectors.
the meaniest tax collectors.
like the praetorian guard of the roman emperor, who actually decided who to be the next emperor (protection from accidents is hard to get if your bodyguards throw you against pointy swords) you grab tax collectors who actually hate the guts out of the government. who are of completely opposite political alignment to the people they have to guard, and you can be sure they will do what they can to show up the dirt, instead of hiding it for a percentage.

[Dutchling]

Why don't you just let me rule the world? I promise I'll be nice.

And shadeknight, who will tail the tax collectors?

[GlyphGryph]

Shade, your plan seems look a good wait to get corrupt tax collectors - either making stuff up to get people they don't like out of power or ACTING like they would and then accepting bribes on the side.

Either way, recipe for disaster.

[RedKing]

Potential, but still too many what-ifs. People already grouse about the fact that you need only serve five years in Congress to retire at 62 with full benefits and pension for life. Also, a 200k cap on annual income for the rest of your life is still going to scare away a lot of qualified folks from the private sector (though some might argue that's a good thing).

I wouldn't be averse to the lifetime pension and cap being linked to both the length of tenure and highest position achieved, sort of like how military pay and pensions are a function of rank and term. So a one-term House member might get a paltry couple hundred bucks a year "pension" check to thank him/her for their service, but their post-Congress earnings cap might be very high, because they're not really going to be able to cash in on influence-peddling and lobbying with one measley two-year term under their belt. A two-term (12 year) Senator might get a much juicier pension, but have a much lower cap on post-Congress income.

A lifer like Jesse Helms would have a nice fat pension check, but basically he'd have to live off that and be restricted to pretty much no outside income.

In theory, there's going to be some Pareto-optimal point after some # of years where, if you're in it for the money, you want OUT of government to maximize your post-government earnings potential. That would encourage those who are really just in to get paid to jump ship and move to K Street, while the elder statesmen who are in it for the love of public service (or the love of power) stay in for the long haul.

[Phmcw]

I take asia and Africa. No reason to be greedy, and there is still Oceania for someone who is ballsy enough to rule Australia.

@Redking about letting children choose their meals: No, sorry. The peoples I know are able to make informed decision and are not stupid. I know the "I'm in the ten top per cent" myths is a popular one, but A) 9 time oult of ten it's not true B) the most intelligent peoples are rarely the better functioning ones. With that in mind, the last point, and most important, is : how educated is your target population.
2 risk : 1) absolute moron population. That happen : bad (or no) educational system, anti intellectualism, murder of the middle class... can lead to a country where, on average, people are under educated idiots. Democracy will fail and there will be no easy way out of the crisis, you'll have to educate the masses. One of the most important question right now is : has US sunk to this?
2) Well functioning country. Rich country, great education, peoples read a lot and see themselves as intellectuals... and for a reason (possibly because god hates us) the first thing they'll think is that they are superior to the rest of the world. I saw that in Flanders, in Sweden, Germany, Netherlands ... Well, no they are not. Good choices have been made, they get the benefits of a well functioning bureaucracy and of an educated population, but make a few mistakes (like for instance, turning xenophobic, slash your social spending, or raise the price of education) and you'll be back to square one. But nooooo, they lower their guard, blame immigration for any problem that may arise and slumber in a comfy haze. They'll wake up soon enough to the sound of their world shattering.

[ChairmanPoo]

I take asia and Africa. No reason to be greedy, and there is still Oceania for someone who is ballsy enough to rule Australia.

I'll do it if I can style myself as "Big Brother"

[MetalSlimeHunt]

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.

Starship Troopers was a book and later movie about the positive benefits of living in a fascist state. Not democracy.

[GlyphGryph]

RedKing, I really love your alterations to my idea. The system picture you paint with those words is, in my mind, a pretty beautiful one.

What state are you from? Would you care to start a movement with me?

[RedKing]

North Carolina. Our senior Senator is a prime example of a guy who's just in it to get paid. 

[DJ]

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.

Starship Troopers was a book and later movie about the positive benefits of living in a fascist state. Not democracy.

Actually, the book and the movie had completely opposite messages.

[scriver]

The movie also focused on the action and put any message way in the back. And even then it was mostly segments paroding propaganda. Didn't say much on fascism, good or bad.