|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ANOTHER Political Quiz | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Maybe they shouldn't be paid at all. They're almost all millionaires--if not when they take office, shortly after. And they don't need no steenkin pension either ...
My view mirrors Poul Anderson's Dominic Flandry, ... Not (gasp) Heinlein? Then there is Nicholas van Rijn ... corporate scalawag ...
I find direct democracy a terrifying notion. At least our representative democracy often slows things down enough for the fever of the day to pass. It seems to me that representatives should not be in a position to make decisions that affect them without affecting the people they represent (pay, healthcare, pension, etc) and that these should be decided (or at least approved) by direct votes during the next election. Should Supreme Court decisions be validated\approved by direct votes? What is the process to check and balance these decisions? What should it be? Representative democracy will always be open\subject to corruption and corrupting influences, so how can we put a check on that process? by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
RAZD writes: Representative democracy will always be open\subject to corruption and corrupting influences, so how can we put a check on that process? Damned if I know. I once thought our founders did a pretty good job of it, but as things stand, maybe not so much. But I think the answer in any democracy lies with the voters. An electorate informed and involved enough for a just and effective direct democracy would do just as well at representative democracy, and vice versa. Demand transparency, rein in big money: the essential political reform of our time. But the voters who indirectly created the current SCOTUS would do no better seating them directly. I'm not inalterably opposed to national referenda, but the bar to launching them should be high, or we'll get knocked around like ping pong balls."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Omnivorous writes:
We sometimes have politicians reminding us that they could make more money in private industry. My response is, "Please do." Maybe they shouldn't be paid at all. (I think politicians should get welfare. It might give them some incentive.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
(I think politicians should get welfare. It might give them some incentive.) And they should have to live in barracks during their term. I have often wondered whether it would work if our representatives were chosen by lottery, like jurors. A single term and you are free. The problem is that there might be a high rate of suicide. Just think of spending even 2 years doing nothing but sitting in meetings. I know it would drive me crazy, but my odds of being chosen from 200 million other people would be an low enough to risk it.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3978 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 7.3
|
Tanypteryx writes: And they should have to live in barracks during their term. Barracks aren't so bad. Let 'em live in slums and feed themselves with the average allotment of food stamps."If you can keep your head while those around you are losing theirs, you can collect a lot of heads."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined:
|
Tanypteryx writes:
I've considered that myself, but mostly as a science-fiction story.
I have often wondered whether it would work if our representatives were chosen by lottery, like jurors. Tanypteryx writes:
There is something to be said for continuity though. When everybody is the new kid on the block, who shows them the ropes? A single term and you are free. I like the U.S. system where 1/3 of the Senate is elected every two years. Maybe the lottery could use a staggered system like that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4344 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 5.9
|
I like the U.S. system where 1/3 of the Senate is elected every two years. Maybe the lottery could use a staggered system like that. A staggered system would work, but we could also make learning how the government works part of high school education. The issues would end up being much simpler, I think. No more complex multi-thousand page bills with exceptions and amendments, especially unrelated amendments. I know these kinds of changes in how we organize and govern ourselves will never happen, anymore than RAZD's great ideas will, but I still find myself thinking, "What if?"What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2578 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.8
|
Tanypteryx writes:
I have often wondered whether it would work if our representatives were chosen by lottery, like jurors. A single term and you are free. The problem is that there might be a high rate of suicide. Just think of spending even 2 years doing nothing but sitting in meetings. I know it would drive me crazy, but my odds of being chosen from 200 million other people would be an low enough to risk it. I have already posted something like that here, i think, Tanypteryx.Somewhere, anyway. Actually the bottom level is the juror lottery. After you do jury duty, your name gets thrown into the hopper for the next level up (select(wo)man, or something like city councilor, or whatever.). Any one can take their name out of the hopper at any time. Then those from level 2 finish their term and their names get thrown into the next hopper level, and so on all the way to State Rep, State Senator, Governor, US Rep, US Senate and on up to President of the US. That way the person at the top has EXPERIENCE at every level. No campaign money is ever spent. BUT.... Bribery would still be unchained willy-nilly. Maybe sequester them? Any official caught taking money is gone from the system with no pension, no healthcare, no retirement. Ah, not sure this would work. Have to have a very different emphasis in Civic classes in school. "Insane? Whaddya mean? None of you idiots here are any more nuts than the average asshole walking out on the street!" - paraphrasing Jack Nicholson in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest"- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 348 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
anglagard writes: Considering this is actual evidence for or against the effectiveness of direct democracy, perhaps the historical data concerning each state where it has been implemented should be deeply examined. Here is a summary of all ballot initiatives that that took place in 2012. (A good resource for anyone interested.) While I have not reviewed them all I didn't see anything there that was cause for concern even though I didn't agree with all of the outcomes. I wonder if anyone can point to some sign of mob rule or irrational behaviour. Remember that all of the results are subject to examination by the courts after their passage.
Omnivorous writes: I find direct democracy a terrifying notion. At least our representative democracy often slows things down enough for the fever of the day to pass. I completely agree that there needs to be time for cool reflection and that a bureaucracy ensures that at least some of that happens but I think that you are again conflating DD with mob rule. I don't see why DD would speed anything up very much. Why is it better to elect a representative to vote on issues that they know little about as opposed to voting on the issues ourselves? Leaving aside the issue of process and how we could do it, what is theoretically wrong with working toward a more direct appeal to the people? The only objection I have seen so far is one of fear.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Here's a thought -
At the end of a representatives term of office there is a referendum where all the voters they represent review each of the choices/votes cast by the representative agree or disagree on each item If total (agree) < total (disagree) votes, then they cannot run for reelection. There is no campaigning, no ads, nothing but the list of actual performance in office decisions. Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 348 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
I am not sure what the benefit to that would be. As it is now if the rep doesn't measure up then they do not get reelected. Why the separation between the vote and the people?
In theory, the people are the highest authority. Historically, representatives solved the practical problem of actually being available to vote on issues. As technology begins to be able to solve this problem I don't see why we don't employ it. Doing away with rep dem should eliminate any chance of misrepresentation. I think that it would also reduce the opportunity for corruption. It is like the opposition comes from the idea that democracy is ok for me but not for everyone. Doesn't that seem a little hypocritical?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As it is now if the rep doesn't measure up then they do not get reelected. Except they are mostly campaigning with lots of dollars in fairly secure districts. And I think the referendum votes should be yes/no with no record of the reps record.
Why the separation between the vote and the people? That's your cooloff time. (abe) this could be a way to introduce DD Edited by RAZD, : ?by our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 348 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
How about constituents inform their reps, by some secure method, which way they want them to vote on a particular issue. If the number of voters participating crosses a threshold then the rep is obligated to vote that way. If not then the rep can vote as they wish.
The rep could have the ability to vote against the wishes of his constituents even if the threshold is passed but would then have to defend that action. Perhaps limit this ability to a certain number of occasions or make it painful in some way. Maybe dock them 20% of their income for every divergent vote. I think that if we want people to participate then we have to set it up so that their vote makes a real difference as opposed to the lip service that we get now.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
It is like the opposition comes from the idea that democracy is ok for me but not for everyone. Doesn't that seem a little hypocritical? Yes, that would be hypocritical. But I don't see anyone expressing anything like that opinion.Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I have never met a man so ignorant that I couldn't learn something from him. Galileo Galilei If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 348 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Of course not that would be hypocritical.
How many here think that they themselves should not be allowed to vote? While Omnivoruous is terrified of DD I am sure that he doesn't think that we should be terrified of him voting.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024