Some questions about democracy

[John_fi_Skye]

Yes. Sort of. For me, though, it's about how averages rarely tell you much. All the votes that respresent diverse opinions get mushed together - I'm thinking mainly about the UK - and we end up with somebody having a mandate for policies that not many folk wanted, and the general understanding, supported by our daft media, is that we've got the outcome most of us had wished for. It's all so much guff.

Yes. So much guff. So, suggest a better alternative to democracy, if you please.

Yep. That's not so easy. But what I have posted in the past, and I don't have the time - at my rate of typing - to go into it again just now, is that I believe our species should be working towards some kind of social accommodation (call it "politics", if you like) that depends on altruism and not materialism. If we clear away religions, and take a radical view of what politics is actually all about, we'll be able to move in that direction, but I think we've a long way to go. But the walk of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and as I say I think that's the way we should be looking.

[Hermit]

Yes. Sort of. For me, though, it's about how averages rarely tell you much. All the votes that respresent diverse opinions get mushed together - I'm thinking mainly about the UK - and we end up with somebody having a mandate for policies that not many folk wanted, and the general understanding, supported by our daft media, is that we've got the outcome most of us had wished for. It's all so much guff.

Yes. So much guff. So, suggest a better alternative to democracy, if you please.

Yep. That's not so easy. But what I have posted in the past, and I don't have the time - at my rate of typing - to go into it again just now, is that I believe our species should be working towards some kind of social accommodation (call it "politics", if you like) that depends on altruism and not materialism. If we clear away religions, and take a radical view of what politics is actually all about, we'll be able to move in that direction, but I think we've a long way to go. But the walk of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and as I say I think that's the way we should be looking.

So ... the better alternative to democracy is ... what?

[Thinking Aloud]

A question that often pops into my mind is whether democracy could work, or work better, without political parties. That's as far as my question has ever got, though.

Could we elect our local representative on the basis of their own stance on issues? Could those representatives then elect (amongst themselves) a cabinet and leader for the coming term, on the basis of their actual skills and qualifications, or on the basis of past political achievements? Could policy be determined by those representatives actually voting for and against stuff on the basis of their own / their constituents' views, and not along party lines? Would it all just degenerate into "my mates" and "your mates"? What would be the checks and balances for such a system? I dunno - I just wonder whether the party system (which eventually polarises into a two-party system) is inherent in the failing of politics, at least in terms of how it's viewed by the public.

Anyway... As I said, I've never put much thought into it, as you can tell.

[pErvinalia]

I think it would always evolve back into political parties, or at least alliances that often replicate.

[John_fi_Skye]

Yes. Sort of. For me, though, it's about how averages rarely tell you much. All the votes that respresent diverse opinions get mushed together - I'm thinking mainly about the UK - and we end up with somebody having a mandate for policies that not many folk wanted, and the general understanding, supported by our daft media, is that we've got the outcome most of us had wished for. It's all so much guff.

Yes. So much guff. So, suggest a better alternative to democracy, if you please.

Yep. That's not so easy. But what I have posted in the past, and I don't have the time - at my rate of typing - to go into it again just now, is that I believe our species should be working towards some kind of social accommodation (call it "politics", if you like) that depends on altruism and not materialism. If we clear away religions, and take a radical view of what politics is actually all about, we'll be able to move in that direction, but I think we've a long way to go. But the walk of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and as I say I think that's the way we should be looking.

So ... the better alternative to democracy is ... what?

"Democracy" meantime, but let's not kid ourselves, let's not be complacent or think that politically everything's fine, and let's be aware that as a species we need to be trying to find something better. And I believe that when that something is found it will be based on altruism. I believe that's the direction in which we should be looking for answers.

[redunderthebed]

Why do we not allow children to vote from the age of literacy?

Because even literate children are still to ignorant to figure out whether or not how momma and daddy tell you to vote is right.

Some people never get past this stage in fact it is increasing in OZ.

Democracy IS a sham a grotesque circus played out much like a movie or a play on our tv screens where the politicians of that parties that can gain power have merged with the ruling classes and become completely and utterly removed from the concerns of the populace at large. They either get people so apathetic they withdraw or it has become a team sport like any other therefor a genuine alternative that would be anything other than a protest vote at this stage is impossible.

However i think in a detached and rational way (in so far not forgetting that it is at the end of the day a circus) must stay involved and engaged in it because the more people are engaged in a way that isn't blue team/red team and are genuinely wanting a better society that puts people before profits and a government that is more in a positive way a circus on tv the more likely we can change things for the better.

[Tyrannical]

A Democracy is only as good as the electorate.

I'd suggest a minimum voting age of 30 and limit it to productive members of society that are able to pay their taxes. Retirees that previously qualified would continue to qualify.

[John_fi_Skye]

A Democracy is only as good as the electorate.

I'd suggest a minimum voting age of 30 and limit it to productive members of society that are able to pay their taxes. Retirees that previously qualified would continue to qualify.

....till they failed the retention-of-the-marbles test?

[JimC]

A question that often pops into my mind is whether democracy could work, or work better, without political parties. That's as far as my question has ever got, though.

Could we elect our local representative on the basis of their own stance on issues? Could those representatives then elect (amongst themselves) a cabinet and leader for the coming term, on the basis of their actual skills and qualifications, or on the basis of past political achievements? Could policy be determined by those representatives actually voting for and against stuff on the basis of their own / their constituents' views, and not along party lines? Would it all just degenerate into "my mates" and "your mates"? What would be the checks and balances for such a system? I dunno - I just wonder whether the party system (which eventually polarises into a two-party system) is inherent in the failing of politics, at least in terms of how it's viewed by the public.

Anyway... As I said, I've never put much thought into it, as you can tell.

I have thought along very similar lines, TA, without getting much further than this!

However, perhaps there is a few things that can be done to tweak the system in small ways. Various systems of proportional representation could be tried, that at least get the percentages of the elected representatives in the parliament (or equivalent) closer to the preferences of the electorate. More scrutiny and oversight on political donations, and some sort of cap on overall spending. Perhaps even limiting political advertising to clear statements of policy; no more hate and smear campaigns, and the use every manipulative art in the adman's lexicon.

I still remain opposed to increasing the age limit, or putting other limitations or tests on voter intelligence. Smacks of elitism, to me - we're all in this together!

A Democracy is only as good as the electorate.

I'd suggest a minimum voting age of 30 and limit it to productive members of society that are able to pay their taxes. Retirees that previously qualified would continue to qualify.

....till they failed the retention-of-the-marbles test?

They're my marbles, and you'll only get them when you pry them from my cold, dead hands!

[Svartalf]

Offices should be short term and assigned by lots... Sure you'll get a lot of nincompoops, but at least you won't get the power crazy nincompoops.

[Jason]

Earn the right to vote and hold office.

How?

[MrJonno]

Democracy only really works when the winners and losers have a lot in common. While is why it doesn't work in Afghanistan or Iraq. Yet to be seen if it can continue to work in the US

[charlou]

Yes. Sort of. For me, though, it's about how averages rarely tell you much. All the votes that respresent diverse opinions get mushed together - I'm thinking mainly about the UK - and we end up with somebody having a mandate for policies that not many folk wanted, and the general understanding, supported by our daft media, is that we've got the outcome most of us had wished for. It's all so much guff.

Yes. So much guff. So, suggest a better alternative to democracy, if you please.

Yep. That's not so easy. But what I have posted in the past, and I don't have the time - at my rate of typing - to go into it again just now, is that I believe our species should be working towards some kind of social accommodation (call it "politics", if you like) that depends on altruism and not materialism. If we clear away religions, and take a radical view of what politics is actually all about, we'll be able to move in that direction, but I think we've a long way to go. But the walk of a thousand miles begins with a single step, and as I say I think that's the way we should be looking.

So ... the better alternative to democracy is ... what?

"Democracy" meantime, but let's not kid ourselves, let's not be complacent or think that politically everything's fine, and let's be aware that as a species we need to be trying to find something better. And I believe that when that something is found it will be based on altruism. I believe that's the direction in which we should be looking for answers.

I like your thinking ... Are the two (democracy and altruism) necessarily mutually exclusive? Education and contraception and healthcare seem to be key in this. And that's both progressive and precarious.

And how do we confront the atrocious behaviour present in other cultures and political systems ..or should we even? (My view atm is yes, we should)

[charlou]

Edited my post ^

[John_fi_Skye]

Thanks, RiverF. I don't know that democracy and altruism are mutually exclusive, but I'm certain that altruism and capitalism are, and our present world order - which is of course essentially capitalism - uses democracy rather like ancient Roman emperors used bread and circuses: our democracy is used to pacify us, by giving us the illusion that we're deciding the future. And capitalism is inherently conservative, in that capitalists want the present world order to continue, and it's no surprise that the media are generally owned by such people, and the media and "democracy" go hand in hand. So, yes - I hadn't thought of this, but democracy (as we have it) and altruism are mutually exclusive.

Some time ago, I put a lot of my thoughts on such matters into this fred: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... t=altruism

I was asked, and so I tried to sum up what I hope for: "To my mind, it would be a world in which every person understood that for the good of everybody (including him/herself), he/she needed to work to the best of his/her ability to do whichever job he/she was good at. So, people who were good at making things would make them. People who were good at driving would drive. People who liked helping young folk could teach. People who were good at making folk laugh could be the entertainers. Those who couldn't do anything more sophisticated than sweeping the streets could sweep the streets - though of course there would be much less litter because everybody would understand the need not to drop it, and because consumerist wrappers would no longer be necessary. Nobody would need to be induced by financial payment to give their best, because everyone would understand that that was the right thing to do, and no-one would ever try to subvert the system. There would be no need for police or armed forces, because everyone would understand how to get on together by pulling together for the good of all. There would be no need for all the apparatus we currently have for buying and selling, since consumerism would be a thing of the past. There would be no need for politics, because everyone would understand that it's fine to be different from one another, as long as everybody's working for the good of all. And in return for his/her efforts, everyone would have all his/her needs met by society - enough food, warmth, shelter, sanitation, medical care - and nobody would try to take more than their share, or more than they needed, or more than anybody else. That's it. I do think that as a species we've got some way to go, but I live in hope."