A modest proposal for electoral reform
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-01-2013, 08:11 PM
A modest proposal for electoral reform
Democracy is a better idea than most other forms of governance human groups have recently devised. In practice, though, democracy tends to get itself co-opted, devalued, prostituted and hijacked. Tinkering with different ways to carve up the constituencies or count the ballots or buy the members of a parliament has resulted in no improvement during my voting life. Every new political leader declares the system broken - then, if he attains power, breaks off another chunk.

I propose we don't even try reforming the present election process - just scrap that sucker!

Forget the gerrymandering and colleges and throwing losing votes over the fence to a potential winner. Forget the districts. Throw away the voting machines and. Shut down the campaign-ad factories. Cancel the fund-raisers. Disband the parties. eject the lobbyists - but check their pockets for silverware.

Just count the population of every county, and decide how many officials that population needs to manage
the necessary public services. Say, one per thousand citizens, or one per ten thousand; doesn't matter. Register the eligible adults in every county, and draw the governing council of the next two years by lot. Once a year for half of the council, so there is always a seasoned 50% in office.

Exactly like jury duty. If your name is drawn, you get a month's notice to wind down whatever projects you're involved in, train your replacement, suspend any interests that may conflict with public service, and report to the county seat for inauguration. (Or, just as in jury duty, if you're about to give birth, or have a sensitive job that can't be left at this stage, make your excuses, and the next number is drawn instead.) Serve your two years, make the best decisions you can, then go back to your regular life.

It's not the mean god I have trouble with - it's the people who worship a mean god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2013, 08:58 PM (This post was last modified: 27-01-2013 10:54 PM by PoolBoyG.)
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
Philosopher Kings.

Born and raised to be leaders. They are removed largely from society, but unlike living in a gated community, there are no allowed benefits and perks or luxuries. Almost impossible to corrupt.

-Set salary so they can't use any bribes. Can't live or spend beyond their means.
-Unable to "retire" so they can't use bribes after they retire.
-Withdrawn from society, unable to transfer bribes to family or friends.
-Chosen by other Philosopher Kings, so can't be bribed into taking power.

note: Who's to say they can't change the rules? True, but these rules would be the base that the system would be founded on, unchanging, almost "holy".

Benevolent dictatorships seem the way to go Consider
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2013, 10:39 PM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
That be okay, if

- they were just as affected by the decisions they make as are the people outside the gates
and
- whoever nurtures and trains them is immune to influence

It's not the mean god I have trouble with - it's the people who worship a mean god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2013, 10:44 PM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
The ancient Greeks did this.

You've either read this somewhere else, or like me, saw it on QI.

There is of course the obvious problem of randomly drawing fucking morons, and considering this is America, chances are good. At least politicians know the alphabet.
There is also the obvious breach in human freedoms not to mention the number of people that simply wont want to will be high.

The system is crap in theory and I think it would be crap in practicality.

If you want a better system of government without "politicians" then don't look to the Greeks, look to the Chinese (current, not historical). Those in power are people valued by the party, most are engineers for example (a large percentage are engineers I believe). Practical people who have proven their worth.
The problem with politicians is they're all intellectuals with no practical experience, China has solved this and it works very well for them.
China is already in the process of solving many issues that they have as a result of their huge population. Public transport for example, if not good now, is certainly being rapidly imporved. China has the largest hydro damn in the world, the thing is fucking massive and produces far more electricity then any nuclear power plant in the states.
Chinas political systems is a dictatorship (in the form of a party rather then 1 guy), but it works.


If you want a voting system then MMP is your best bet.
Have 50 seats (1 for each state). Each state votes for a person to repersent their state, that winner then gets that state seat. Then have the rest (I don't know how many seats are in the US), say like 250 or whatever, for party seats. Those party seats are then given based on percentage voted.
ie: Say the Republicans get 40% of the party vote they will get 100 seats of the 250. Libertarians might get 10% so they get 25 seats etc...
Then, each state seat person is either an individual or more likely belongs to a party (ie: so the person to repersent Cali might belong to the Democrats).
Then, 300 seats means 151 seats are required to get into power. So say the Republicans get 40% of the party vote and win 20 states. That means they have 120 seats. Say Democrats get 45% of the votes, so 113 seats and win 25 states, that's 138 seats. Neither has gotten into power (haven't reached that 151 seat requirement). Then say the Libertarian party got 5% and the other 5 states, that's 18 seats.
The Democrats can then form a coalition with the Libertarian party and come into power.

Considering democracy is about repersentation of the peoples wishes it is the most fair system.

I don't talk gay, I don't walk gay, it's like people don't even know I'm gay unless I'm blowing them.
[Image: 10h27hu.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-01-2013, 11:05 PM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
(27-01-2013 10:39 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  That be okay, if

- they were just as affected by the decisions they make as are the people outside the gates
and
- whoever nurtures and trains them is immune to influence

True. But the basic tenets would be that the PK can't enrich themselves or "loved ones". So, their ruling is absolute but they can't use it for their own personal use. The only "benefits" they would be allowed is from the emotional/moral reaction that their decisions have on the population. Could the PK devolve into idiots, making bad decisions, or become sadists and take pleasure in suffering? I'm a bit iffy on exactly how the PK choose the other PK, and how exactly they are educated to say confidently that this couldn't happen. I think the "Warrior" class has an important role in this, acting as a safeguard on any failings of the PK.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 05:54 PM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2013 06:29 PM by TrainWreck.)
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
(27-01-2013 08:11 PM)Peterkin Wrote:  I propose we don't even try reforming the present election process - just scrap that sucker!

Forget the gerrymandering and colleges and throwing losing votes over the fence to a potential winner. Forget the districts. Throw away the voting machines and. Shut down the campaign-ad factories. Cancel the fund-raisers. Disband the parties. eject the lobbyists - but check their pockets for silverware.

Just count the population of every county, and decide how many officials that population needs to manage
the necessary public services.

Serve your two years, make the best decisions you can, then go back to your regular life.
DO IT - write a constitution. Write it up into a constitution - the whole shebang.

I did, and I decided that there is a system that uses House Representatives for all three level of government for efficient use of our communications networks that we have now that they did not have in 1787. the smallest municipalities only need six elected officials and the largest get 36, and they are required to keep track of the treasury for the municipality, the state, and the federal government.

You haven't thought it out that far have you?

The state senates are to be made up of mayors, who are popularly elected in their districts, and they elect federal senators, and their responsibility is to regulate commerce, and maintain world peace.

I am way ahead of you, and everybody else. Supposedly there is some lunatic Georgetown Constitutional law professor coming out with a book that says we need to get rid of the Constitution, but it doesn't sound like he has replacement for it.

If you want to be famous, write one, because it getting closer and closer to when people are going to realize that the 1787 Constitution is inadequate for a sophisticated society that uses HTML to organize text.

My brilliant rendition are attached here for you, lucky dogs.

Humanism - ontological doctrine that posits that humans define reality
Theism - ontological doctrine that posits a supernatural entity creates and defines reality
Atheism - political doctrine opposed to theist doctrine in public policy
I am right, and you are wrong - I hope you die peacefullyCool
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 06:16 PM
AW: A modest proposal for electoral reform
TrainWreck is back!

That rhymed. Cool

[Image: IcJnQOT.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-01-2013, 06:47 PM (This post was last modified: 29-01-2013 07:14 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
Meh I'm one of those people who'd rather not even have a president. I'd rather have a council replace the presidency.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelfth_Ame...nstitution

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2013, 01:10 PM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
A democracy is not the answer. We are a Constitutional-Republic. Big difference. Keep the Electoral College but change it up so that states are not winner take all. Tie the EC votes to the districts, like they do in Maine. It is a more accurate understanding of who wants what. Winning a state 51.1%-49.9% and giving them all the EC votes in that state is not an accurate representation of what the populace wants.

[Image: bmHWg.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Generation Why?'s post
30-01-2013, 08:55 PM
RE: A modest proposal for electoral reform
(30-01-2013 01:10 PM)Generation Why? Wrote:  A democracy is not the answer. We are a Constitutional-Republic. Big difference. Keep the Electoral College but change it up so that states are not winner take all. Tie the EC votes to the districts, like they do in Maine. It is a more accurate understanding of who wants what. Winning a state 51.1%-49.9% and giving them all the EC votes in that state is not an accurate representation of what the populace wants.
Nothing is stopping more states from doing that right now. States decide how to apportion their electors.

And in response to the OP, if you were looking for a random selection of idiots, the current Congress already has a representative sample of that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes BryanS's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: