-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
What's wrong with Democracy?
- Thread starter Zaptruder
- Start date
- Status
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
That's kinda why the United States is a Republic, and not a pure Democracy.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
I think its more the structure of American republic, and lack of minor parties holding a balance of power rather then democracy being flawed.
I cant stand republicans in Australia that push for a directly elected president rather then one appointed by parliament, I am a firm believer in a separation of head of state and government.
I cant stand republicans in Australia that push for a directly elected president rather then one appointed by parliament, I am a firm believer in a separation of head of state and government.
6.8 said:
Well, since you ask so nicely, I guess I'll have to.
Consider that the greatest and most important aspect of Democracy is that it has some degree of accountability outside of violent upheavals. That it essentially, ideally, forces some sort of bare minimum in terms of competency.
Also consider that the best system of government would involve having an immortal, very powerful, very wise king... someone capable of governing with absolute authority, and doing so in order to maximize the utility of the people and resources he controls, for the purposes of creating a socially, economically, militarily sound kingdom.
The benefits of such a government is that, it doesn't rely on the people to make decisions that help govern themselves; understanding the needs of a country and optimizing it is a life long pursuit, and frankly the average person just doesn't have the time and ability, much less the care to do so. It's also consistent, so that long term plans can be made and executed without been side tracked. Basically, the best man for the job.
Of course, practically, a monarchy is a very flawed system of government as the high variability of the quality of the rulers is likely to overtime produce a single or a number of flawed rulers that would essentially sink the country; it is much easier to destroy than to make after all.
Also consider that at least as it is practiced now, that entering into a government doesn't need any real qualifications that really say you've been trained and have the knowledge to govern, but rather just a popular vote... an analogy can be drawn between that and voting in doctors and lawyers, rather than having them be recognized as such through examinations and training. Sure, you'll get some doctors and lawyers that will be able to do a competent job; they might have studied in their own time, regardless of the lack of qualifications (as they're not needed). But only having some that are qualified... that's an outrageous thought, and one that would terrify any sane person if such a thing were to occur.
Yet governing is arguably more important jobs that affects more lives, and yet, here we are voting those people in. It seems strange doesn't it... especially for a system of government as hyped as democracy, that we should want to spread it all around the world as if it were the be all and end all of goverment systems.
A form of government that would approach something like the immortal wise king, and still be practical and hold accountability, would be a Meritocracy. Basically taking the best willing people for the job, making them seek professional status as people with the ability to govern. Been that they're required to pass exams and what not, that's some measure of accountability. As for the rest, it does boil down to details of how you'd implement a meritocratic government, but I'd suggest a few features; forced rotation of key positions in the government every so often (5-10 years?). A certain amount of democratic element; the populace can vote for a forced change in government every X years... 3 or so years; which would require at least X% (an arbitarily decent % of the entire populace) to turn up and vote to remove the current people from the government. At that point, an audit style review of the government takes place and key positions have people shifted off while the rest of the government is scrutinized as to its failings and what not. The people don't get to vote in the new government, but an independent group that assesses candidates appoint these people from a pool of qualified candidates.
Really though... a better government can be had than just democracy, so don't look to it as the be all and end all.
In a practical sense though, the best that a country can do right now in a democratic system is that its people contientiously seek knowledge about the candidates they vote in and about the policies that govern their lives. Frankly, not enough people do it... because it's just not an easy task. It might almost be easier, in that sense to change systems of government to the one I described.
This will end badly. So many people believe democracy is the only solution. It's basically impossible to have any kind of serious debate on the subject. Democracy in the modern age of television and mass media is completely corupted. Untill democracy has some form of check system so when a political person or party lies or bends the truth they have severe punishment, like prison.
Ash Housewares
The Mountain Jew
Zaptruder said:
everything
Azih said:
That's all part of the details, rather than the broad framework. The kinds of questions you'd ask not to put the idea in its place, but rather what you'd ask if you details on how to set up a meritocracy.
That said, my suggestions would be...
with regards to what kind of criteria you determine the exam, well you'd get a big bunch of political intellectuals together and determine what kind of important things would go into making a governer, what kind of knowledge they have, what kind of goals and gaffes they should avoid, what it means to be a politician.
I don't know why markers needs to be an important question. I'd assume in the same way other exams are marked, with individuals of knowledge and integrity.
a group independent of government and political affiliations group that is knowledgable on laws and regulation by which the theoretical government would have to abide by would be a good start.
Any decent government should have some broad goals in place though, things that it aims to achieve by been in power...
A meritocracy should seek to achieve effective social, technological progress, such that social classes and the differences between those groups become less of a factor, also such that it increases social understanding and well being through social education (even stuff like drink driving and smoking campaigns would be examples of social education, but taking it a step beyond that, you'd actively help the populace to understand and appreciate differences in different/other groups.
Also such that technology continues to increase, not just unimpeded, but with aid from the government; preferably in the direction that would aid the needs and wants of the general populace.
The problem is the republic. If you had a true democracy, I think people would take it more seriously b/c they would have direct effect on the decisions. The problem is that a republic still puts the control in the hands of a few. And people are so jaded and apathetic to change it, that it persists. Campaign finance reform is something the media should really grille politicians on, but they get their back scratched, so they're delinquent. PEACE.
Think is Zap that the details are the killers in your metiocracy. In fact I'd argue that you've replaced the problem of finding an immortal, very powerful, very wise, incorruptible king in an ideal government with the worse problem of finding whole committies of them to administer a not quite as ideal government.
See the base issue here (and with all forms of government) is who holds power as any power can be abused. And ...
The 'details' determine how workable (or even possible) the whole construct is.
See the base issue here (and with all forms of government) is who holds power as any power can be abused. And ...
...All of these people hold POWER, with all caps. It is a 'who watches the watchers?' problem. A corrupt marker for example can fudge results to get one or the other candidates better or worse marks. Who's the guardian that ensures that this doesn't happen? And who is there to ensure the guardians aren't corrupted themselves? This
is nowhere near good enough. The stakes are too high, and there will be a lot of people in all stages of the process who will be ambitious enough to spend a lot of energy in trying to find ways to subvert the process to gain executive power for themselves or their cause.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
Pimpwerx said:
A true democracy just wouldn't work, because often, the majority is DEAD WRONG. The majority often goes for popularity and style over substance. The majority doesn't tend to study the issues, let alone understand them, beyond their specific world view. The majority lives in cities, and a true democracy would leave the minority living in rural areas without a voice.
Pure democracy wouldn't work. Like the old saying goes, it's like two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Representative government is meant to place into power people who serve two masters: the will of their constituencies and their own sense of right and wrong. They can make decisions unpopular with their constituencies if they believe it to be the right thing to do or good for the republic as a whole. In addition to this, a representative can be more informed on issues because that's his job. Citizens are too busy to learn every nuance of every issue that comes around. The trick is to keep citizens informed and interested enough that they can still make informed decisions on issues and apply those decisions through political action and voting. (Guess where the US falls short?)
I'd love to see a version of American government with a few tweaks based on a couple centuries' worth of hindsight. My changes would be:
- A little less power in the executive branch; maybe a separate head of government and head of state
- A broader scope for what the Congress can legislate, as long as it's strictly defined: all other powers must remain with the states (no 'interstate commerce' loophole here)
- A mechanism for states to turn over certain legislative spheres to Congress (perhaps on a trial basis) if the need is strong enough
I'd love to see a version of American government with a few tweaks based on a couple centuries' worth of hindsight. My changes would be:
- A little less power in the executive branch; maybe a separate head of government and head of state
- A broader scope for what the Congress can legislate, as long as it's strictly defined: all other powers must remain with the states (no 'interstate commerce' loophole here)
- A mechanism for states to turn over certain legislative spheres to Congress (perhaps on a trial basis) if the need is strong enough
Azih said:
If you're willing to say that, then it's just as likely that a democracy can be flooded with candidates of someones choosing, allowing someone with enough will ability to capture that executive power for themselves. On a more practical level, media manipulation is a key to manipulating the opinion of the populace.
Realistically though, the idea would be to segment the judges so that they don't have collusion, don't have massive influence, but serve as independent arbitraters of the system.
But honestly I just haven't thought that about the details that much... and it seems disingenious to write off this system of government on the basis of the details, while ignoring the advantages that it does have in the broad areas...
Maybe you could take the same energy that you use to criticize the currently none existent details and suggest how you'd set up a system with which that sort of corruption can be avoided. My suggestions, broadly, would be rotating the king makers out of power, so that their tenure like the politicians themselves, don't last too long, having independence among the king makers, such that it isn't any one organization or group that decides on any aspect of the process. Also having a good amount of transperancy in the way they arbitrate their decisions would be a good move.
And that a good portion of the criteria and the power of 'decision' lies in the original documents that specify the system of government, so that the no individual or groups of individuals is considered favoured, as those individuals are simply not around during the inception of the government and it's foundations.
What's currently called democracy is quite weak for it is that a TRUE democracy requires intelligent, informed, and interested voters... since this is not so, there is in reality no democracy, just a bunch of m0r0ns choosing king(When a substantial percent of the population expresses: "OH if it's not genetically modified it has no genes!!!", "It's been proven that Saddam was directly involved in the 9 11 incident", "let us vote for Duby...." :lol you know there is DEFINITELY something VERY VERY wrong going on... the flynn effect makes me shudder for what past generations had to endure...)
To improve on such...
Let's us simply put an additional layer... let those who're informed and who possess iq equivalent to today's 200+, vote and elect officials. Let this democratically elected group, that is to say let this new layer of democracy, have dictatorship power over those officials elected by the rest of the populace.
The only hindrance is the lack of a sufficiently large number of individuals who'd qualify... but the means to achieve such(exponentially increase the numbers who'd qualify into the the 10s and 100s of millions) will be with us within a couple of decades, thus ye who decide to remain weak embrace the will of those who shall be stronger and wiser than all who've ever been. Let the new and ideal nations, rule over those who're innately weaker, inherently less fit to rule. In the end... It's not like there's much of a choice at all, for it's quite obvious that such would have unstoppable absolute military supremacy.
To improve on such...
Let's us simply put an additional layer... let those who're informed and who possess iq equivalent to today's 200+, vote and elect officials. Let this democratically elected group, that is to say let this new layer of democracy, have dictatorship power over those officials elected by the rest of the populace.
The only hindrance is the lack of a sufficiently large number of individuals who'd qualify... but the means to achieve such(exponentially increase the numbers who'd qualify into the the 10s and 100s of millions) will be with us within a couple of decades, thus ye who decide to remain weak embrace the will of those who shall be stronger and wiser than all who've ever been. Let the new and ideal nations, rule over those who're innately weaker, inherently less fit to rule. In the end... It's not like there's much of a choice at all, for it's quite obvious that such would have unstoppable absolute military supremacy.
IQ is a needlessly arbitary and flawed quality controller of the voters...
a better way would simply to have an exam that tests political knowledge as well as current political topic awareness.
It would root out a good deal of people that wouldn't want to be bothered, but still leave enough people that cared to get a good choice in candidates.
a better way would simply to have an exam that tests political knowledge as well as current political topic awareness.
It would root out a good deal of people that wouldn't want to be bothered, but still leave enough people that cared to get a good choice in candidates.
fortified_concept
Banned
Zaptruder said:
I agree. It wouldn't be democracy, but democracy obviously doesn't work. Too many clueless idiots voting...
Zaptruder said:
Just using it as an example of general intelligence, though it's controversial. I've heard it's been correlated with greater grey mass in some regions of the brain involved in the higher functions. Regardless, I'll expound some more on my point.
Whole-genome-sequencing is bound to come into an acceptable price within at the most a couple of decades(some companies posit this'll occur within this very decade). With this studies of populations, will finally yield sufficient data to begin analyzing and uncovering the genes behind complex traits like general intelligence.( Those who learn faster with greater ease, those who can handle more and more complex work, etc.) Analysis of the gene product tweaks or regulation changes of the genes involved will yield clues as to why this is so(larger neural net, faster processing in a particular area, easier to make connections/memories here and there, more accurate processing, more efficient use of energy, etc, etc, etc.). Thus the path to greater intelligence and capabilities will be open.
It's quite likely that we'll have safe vectors within a couple of decades too...(i.e. fully functional HACS, human artificial chromosomes). Thus it is that the doors will open for a new era... for a new society to come into being.
-jinx- said:
It's something a lot of people have said, because it makes sense in a certain way. But as always, it's very open to abuse. Fundamentally you're denying the right to vote to a group of people by criteria that are (pretty much by necessity) set by those in power. No prizes for guessing how they're going to try to swing the criteria...
Oh yeah, it certainly has the potential for abuse, and it also fails to appeal to any jingoistic belief in the fundamental equality of all citizens. It's never going to happen.iapetus said:
But the way I look at it, you can't drive a car without demonstrating some rudimentary set of skills, so why should voting be any different? When you're sick, you don't walk around your block asking people to vote on what they think you have, and pursuing a course of treatment for whatever tallies the most votes, right? When you have stupid people putting stupid -- or malicious -- people in office, SOMETHING is deeply fucked.
Divus Masterei said:
You're freaking scary. I was with you for the first paragraph, but then you veered off into the absurd. I feel that less drastic changes can effect similar results-- after all, things weren't always like this (that is, like the state of politics and civics in America today).
Btw, intelligence is no guarantor of wisdom.
EDIT:
It seems that the issue that most of the sane people (-jinx- and Azih, to name a couple) in this thread are concentrating on-- rightly, I might add-- is that of the quality and education of voters in a democracy. To this end, I say we should address the root causes of voter apathy/ignorance, which are myriad. For instance, there's no premium placed on either education or civics in our popular and educational cultures, and the frenetic pace of modern life (particularly in America-- it's interesting to note that our [generally] more politically conscious European brethren work an average of 20% fewer hours per week than we do) leaves one with little time to dedicate to weightier issues like government. This is a systemic problem, to be sure, but I think it can be ameliorated by way of far less heavy-handed measures than what <ahem> some are proposing.
demon said:
You know honestly. It would be supremely difficult to pose such a test that would be neutral and would represent the current political sample with any accuracy... just because I believe that the questions that should be asked by any voter, is asked less by some type of people...
that is to say, the content of the test may be neutral, although the results might not indicate thus.... so how do you pose the test? so that it skews evenly for the political divide, or make it ask the pertinent, but neutral questions so that it skews favorably for people that would vote for one way?
The answer is at least obvious to me though; make the test such that it tests on general knowledge of how the government runs, and a neutral/none partisan and broad sample of current event* topics and facts that are issues important to politics as well.
*Within the period between the test and the previous election I'd guess.
Loki said:
Means to deliver vast knowledge and experience, along with sharing at level far more intimate than any human's ever experience, combined with unequaled intellect, should surely aid with that
. As for the later it's but the truth, power is concentrating, and it's that small groups of intellectuals, with the means and knowledge to bring drastic changes, are said to likely become the greatest threat towards the nations of this here earth.We've seen how small groups, and individuals can now posses more power than ever in history, for power is concentrating... whether for good or evil, a few wield power over the lives of billions right now... some are elected, some are not.(example: Mr. Pres., along with some high-lvl military personal and his nukeys... Mr. Bin and his nasty group).
It's but certain that with the advent of greater access towards information and the ability to manipulate it, alongst with greater technological capabilities, this trend of power concentration is but to intensify. Thus even mankind will... it seems, in the end, be subject to natural law, it will be those who're fittest to rule that will choose the destiny of the race.
Loki said:It seems that the issue that most of the sane people (-jinx- and Azih, to name a couple) in this thread are concentrating on-- rightly, I might add-- is the issue of the quality and education of voters in a democracy. To this end, I say we should address the root causes of voter apathy/ignorance, which are myriad. For instance, there's no premium placed on either education or civics in either our popular or educational cultures, and the frenetic pace of modern life (particularly in America-- it's interesting to note that our [generally] more politically conscious European brethren work on average 20% fewer hours per week than we do) leaves one with little time to dedicate to weightier issues like government. This is a systemic problem, to be sure, but I think it can be ameliorated by way of far less heavy-handed measures than what <ahem> some are proposing.
There might seem like there are less heavy handed options available... but realistically speaking, are such alternatives achievable given the current cultural and political clime? It almost seems like something drastic and something heavy handed would sooner be done, would be a path of less resistance, so to speak, then the other options, that would require some sort of social evolution to have already occurred.
I had someone once tell me that the problem of democracy was that officials were elected by average people. And everyone knows how stupid the average person is, and that by definition half of the population is dumber than them.
I don't necessarily agree. But I thought I'd say hi.
I don't necessarily agree. But I thought I'd say hi.
Alyssa Hu$tle
Member
I believe that a democracy is the way to go, so long as EVERYONE has a say.
Here in Australia it is compulsory to vote. We have no choice, If you dont, you get a big-ass fine.
I like this because I actually have an opinion as to how my country is run, and I feel it is very important for me to voice this. However, EVERY time it has come to voting day, it has been after a big night out, or I have had shit on during the day. It is always most inconvenient, and if it wasnt compulsory, I would not have done it. Even though it is important to me to have my say.
Now, I am a middle-class white Australian. What about the less educated, those who are not middle-class white Aussies what motivation do they have to vote? Sure, they too have a viewpoint and an opinion, but what motivation (education) do they have to vote? If I cant be fucked on the day and I care, what about those who dont?
At leat our system MAKES you think about it and MAKES you make a choice or else you get fined.
I like this. I am sure that if America had a compulsory voting system, the country would be run very differently than what it is now, as so many more voices would HAVE to be heard. The voice of the majority.
We are both a democracy, but I think this is a fundamental difference.
Actually, it changes everything.
Here in Australia it is compulsory to vote. We have no choice, If you dont, you get a big-ass fine.
I like this because I actually have an opinion as to how my country is run, and I feel it is very important for me to voice this. However, EVERY time it has come to voting day, it has been after a big night out, or I have had shit on during the day. It is always most inconvenient, and if it wasnt compulsory, I would not have done it. Even though it is important to me to have my say.
Now, I am a middle-class white Australian. What about the less educated, those who are not middle-class white Aussies what motivation do they have to vote? Sure, they too have a viewpoint and an opinion, but what motivation (education) do they have to vote? If I cant be fucked on the day and I care, what about those who dont?
At leat our system MAKES you think about it and MAKES you make a choice or else you get fined.
I like this. I am sure that if America had a compulsory voting system, the country would be run very differently than what it is now, as so many more voices would HAVE to be heard. The voice of the majority.
We are both a democracy, but I think this is a fundamental difference.
Actually, it changes everything.
Divus Masterei said:Means to deliver vast knowledge and experience, along with sharing at level far more intimate than any human's ever experience, combined with unequaled intellect, should surely aid with that
We've seen how small groups, and individuals can now posses more power than ever in history, for power is concentrating... whether for good or evil, a few wield power over the lives of billions right now... some are elected, some are not.(example: Mr. Pres., along with some high-lvl military personal and his nukeys... Mr. Bin and his nasty group).
It's but certain that with the advent of greater access towards information and the ability to manipulate it, alongst with greater technological capabilities, this trend of power concentration is but to intensify. Thus even mankind will... it seems, in the end, be subject to natural law, it will be those who're fittest to rule that will choose the destiny of the race.
Even if your whole Gattaca-inspired fantasy comes true, that'll just mean that we'd have a lot more innately intelligent people around-- it doesn't, as you say, provide the "means to deliver vast knowledge and experience" (particularly not experience). Knowledge can be acquired more rapidly, sure, but it must still be acquired-- it doesn't come packaged with intelligence. Likewise, experience must be...err...experienced, not passively learned about via reading. The synergy between experience and intelligence, mitigated by cultural and environmental factors, is what produces wisdom. I personally know dozens of phenomenally intelligent people (hell, there are about a dozen on this board), but I only know about two whom I'd consider "wise." Wisdom doesn't come packaged in a box.
Further, we'd then get back to the question of "who defines wisdom?" Who defines the necessary qualities of a leader? What role, if any, does ideology play in such a situation (i.e., are the qualities of a good leader apolitical in nature-- that is, things such as integrity and intelligence-- or do you feel that "good leaders" will always be of a certain specific political/social ideology? Would you agitate to ensure that it is so?) These are the thorny issues that would have to be addressed before you implemented a plan such as you propose; what I propose is that many of these questions are fundamentally unanswerable-- or, in some cases, the conclusions we're likely to arrive at would be entirely unpalatable on a gut level.
Zaptruder said:
No. But we should endeavor to change the cultural and political climate, then, rather than blithely seek to impose an entirely new political dynamic. It would be one thing if the "democratic experiment" was proven to not work given even optimal conditions, but that is not the case, by and large-- as I mentioned, things weren't always this way (at least not to the alarming degree that they are presently). So, if anything, I say we should seek to work within the system to effect change insofar as possible before we discard the extant system in favor of something new. If, despite our best efforts, the system still fails us, then we can consider change. I think that's the most sensible approach.
I just don't feel that our current problems with respect to politics/civics are irremediable. Will it be difficult to change? Certainly. Certain values and interests are very entrenched.
At what cost, though? You do realize that there is a sizeable segment of society that would fight and die to preserve the status quo, right? You'd be risking revolution and needless death, and for what? To bring about a change that could possibly have been brought about by less stringent means? That doesn't strike me as wise.
Like I said, let's try less radical measures first; if those don't work, then I'd be more amenable to solutions such as you propose. The political ignorance and civic apathy we witness presently is a relatively new phenomenon, after all; besides, the current situation in other nations shows us that we can indeed have greater voter participation/education if only we strive to change the factors that are conspiring against it at the present time in America.
Alyssa DeJour said:
But on what grounds does it make you make that choice? Even in the UK, where voting isn't compulsory, some of the reasons people vote for are completely retarded. Because they like the colours of the candidate's flyers, or because they always wanted an MP that looked a bit like the bastard offspring of Eddie Izzard and Julian Clary. If people with no interest in voting other than to avoid a fine have to make a decision I don't see why I should expect their decision to be an informed one, and that's worse than not making a decision at all.
Loki said:
You're right. To seek violent change is a foolish method... the only real method that these changes, small or large should occur should be via a democratic change, ironically. Otherwise, the ideals they stand for could be easily corrupted by the climate the change comes into. Of course to do this, there needs to be a change in the culture... and the only reasonable way to do so would be to affect a grass roots movement... but the hows and wherefors of such a change should be left to a better man. But if such a thing does occur, then it would be a personal duty of people that advocate such a thing, to identify recognize and support it as such.
- Status