NationStates Jolt Archive

I was thinking, the other day, about democracy. As a way of choosing leaders, it's a hell of a lot better than dictatorship, but it's far, far from ideal. It's true... people are stupid, people are lazy, and people make terrible choices when it comes to deciding who their leaders should be. Bush got a second term. I rest my case.

So I started to think about alternatives. It seemed like the people had to have a choice as to who their leaders were. Otherwise, the government could not be truly representitive of the population. The real problem is how the candidates for election are chosen. People don't choose who gets candidacy, political parties do, and they don't pick their candidates based on leadership qualities, they just want to get into power, so they pick their candidates mainly on marketability.

So, how do you get people interested in the political process? How do you make sure that the candidates have real leadership skills? And how do you make sure that a lazy, stupid populace can't choose leaders so backwards and inept as to screw up the entire country?

You submit everyone who wants to be a political candidate to a competition. Each political party can put in five politicians to participate. The participants will be subjected to a rigorous test of their education, knowledge of political history, current events, how current their political beliefs are with vast majority opinions (85% plus scientific polls of the country) and most importantly, their decision making skills, especially as to acting quickly in a crisis. All the necessary things that a leader should have will be tested and each participant will be given a point score. The top ten scores will be voted for, though political parties with more than two in the top ten will have their extras removed and the rest will be bumped up the list until each political party has a maximum of two in the list.

The competition will be government funded but will be entirely created and supervised by a trustable third-party, all examinations will afterwards be thoroughly investigated for bribery, cheating, and/or bias and some serious punishments dealt out for anybody trying to screw with the system.

Best of all, the whole thing will be free for the press to report on and record, and the scores as they are tallied will be immediately made public. Hopefully the public will get interested in cheering their favourite politicians on and it will drum up some more interest in the political process!

This means political parties will have to put forward people with real political skill, education, and leadership qualities, not just people who are puppets or marketable as figureheads.

Probably impossible, but seems more likely than communism ever working to me.

No. You're wrong.

I was thinking, the other day, about democracy. As a way of choosing leaders, it's a hell of a lot better than dictatorship, but it's far, far from ideal. It's true... people are stupid, people are lazy, and people make terrible choices when it comes to deciding who their leaders should be. Bush got a second term. I rest my case.

So I started to think about alternatives. It seemed like the people had to have a choice as to who their leaders were. Otherwise, the government could not be truly representitive of the population. The real problem is how the candidates for election are chosen. People don't choose who gets candidacy, political parties do, and they don't pick their candidates based on leadership qualities, they just want to get into power, so they pick their candidates mainly on marketability.

So, how do you get people interested in the political process? How do you make sure that the candidates have real leadership skills? And how do you make sure that a lazy, stupid populace can't choose leaders so backwards and inept as to screw up the entire country?

You submit everyone who wants to be a political candidate to a competition. Each political party can put in five politicians to participate. The participants will be subjected to a rigorous test of their education, knowledge of political history, current events, how current their political beliefs are with vast majority opinions (85% plus scientific polls of the country) and most importantly, their decision making skills, especially as to acting quickly in a crisis. All the necessary things that a leader should have will be tested and each participant will be given a point score. The top ten scores will be voted for, though political parties with more than two in the top ten will have their extras removed and the rest will be bumped up the list until each political party has a maximum of two in the list.

The competition will be government funded but will be entirely created and supervised by a trustable third-party, all examinations will afterwards be thoroughly investigated for bribery, cheating, and/or bias and some serious punishments dealt out for anybody trying to screw with the system.

Best of all, the whole thing will be free for the press to report on and record, and the scores as they are tallied will be immediately made public. Hopefully the public will get interested in cheering their favourite politicians on and it will drum up some more interest in the political process!

This means political parties will have to put forward people with real political skill, education, and leadership qualities, not just people who are puppets or marketable as figureheads.

Probably impossible, but seems more likely than communism ever working to me.

You just fixed the US. I'm afraid you made it to the category, "Genius".

I'm serious. this would be a great way to run a country.

No. You're wrong.

He may well be, but why, and about what. Thinking about it he is inevitably going to be wrong in something as we all make mistakes (except Myrth that is).

Back to the suggestion:

This would result in our having academics as political leaders. Instead of passing through the apprenticship of garnering internal support in their party, doing the ground level campaigning etc. that teaches politicians how to negotiate deals and so on, our leaders would be capable of and competent to write theses on obscure elements of political history and theory but know nothing of how to deal with real people in real situations. No improvement there then. But yes it is more likely to work than communism.

Eh, if you're going to do something radical with the election system, then be even more radical and hold elections by lottery.

Back to the suggestion:

This would result in our having academics as political leaders. Instead of passing through the apprenticship of garnering internal support in their party, doing the ground level campaigning etc. that teaches politicians how to negotiate deals and so on, our leaders would be capable of and competent to write theses on obscure elements of political history and theory but know nothing of how to deal with real people in real situations. No improvement there then. But yes it is more likely to work than communism.

Yes, I am aware that the specific qualities I noted therein did not exactly merit those that are best for a political leader. To be honest, I don't know what they are. The third party creating the competition, in the process of creating it, would have to figure out what those qualities are and figure out how to test them.

Come to think of it, they'd probably have to perform roleplays of intense political negotiation (which would also make for killer TV).

He may well be, but why, and about what. Thinking about it he is inevitably going to be wrong in something as we all make mistakes (except Myrth that is).
Let me elaborate:
-you will just be transporting the supposed incompetence of leaders to the point where passing the test will be guaranteed through corruption - since that will be the focus
-establishing guards over guards merely serves to cement the idea that a system is reaching its limits. Who will guard the guards? as my country's motto reads.

to quote churchill (well as closely as i can remeber)

democracy is the worst form of governing, apart from all the rest

Let me elaborate:
-you will just be transporting the supposed incompetence of leaders to the point where passing the test will be guaranteed through corruption - since that will be the focus

Thus the "would probably never work" claim. It'd be very difficult to ensure that it remains corruption-free and even more difficult to fix the corruption once it's found, would require a re-test and a further delay of the democractic process... and it may very well happen multiple times... other parties getting nitpicky and demanding retests when the vote doesn't go their way.

Still more likely than communism ever working though.

-establishing guards over guards merely serves to cement the idea that a system is reaching its limits. Who will guard the guards? as my country's motto reads.

That's a moot point, you could say that about any form of government.

to quote churchill (well as closely as i can remeber)

democracy is the worst form of governing, apart from all the rest

There's no doubt that democracy is the best form of government currently in practice. Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to improve on it.

It appears that you are suggesting a meritocracy rather than a democracy. To do that it would be necessary to establish exactly what are the criteria of merit in consideration and how to measure them.

For a political leader, the criteria of merit will depend entirely on the circumstances and situations that that leader will have to deal with during his or her term in office. Now this leads to a demand for a precognitive examination, one which can assess what will be needed prior to this being known.

I am beginning to think that communism may be more likely to succeed after all.

I have always been hesitant to use the word 'democracy' prefering instead to use the word 'representation' since it is a more accurate terminology. But I digress...

In theoretical political terms, such a system as you described would have a 'democratic deficit'. A 'democratic' system is more than just voting and can include participation in government by all members of what is collectively called 'the people'; the public must not be excluded from the political process on any grounds.

While perhaps, the system you described could be construed as an attempt at good governance and may theoretically create such; the system would be inherently 'undemocratic' because while it allows all the people to vote, it concentrates power in the hands of an elite.

The problem with todays 'democracy' is that power is concentrated significantly in a financial elite. Under the system you conceived, power would be concentrated significantly in an educated elite. In addition, considering that money oft entails a decent education, the new leaders may perhaps turn out to be almost identical to the old leaders....

Actually, there is no "Best" form of governing. All kinds of government work in different situations, even Communism and Dictatorships. Democracy has its benefits, but its far from perfect. The suggestion to make it harder for a man to become a prominent politician is a great idea, but as was stated before, it may not work as well as you may think. But, since we live in a "stable" democracy, write up a letter to your government, and see if you get an actual response. You have EVERY right to do this, what harm could it have on you? 'Cept if Mr. Bush makes you "Disappear".

I agree democrcy is crap it just hands power to the dum ass and give no power to smart people distroy capitiliasm and the U.S and become like China the world will be a lots smarter and peaceful place
:D

Still more likely than communism ever working though.

Oh, if that is your point, then yea. But that could be said about many, many forms of government.

That's a moot point, you could say that about any form of government.

Arguably yes. But other governments might not want to advertise that they depend on their guards. It's like the Roman Emperors-Pretorian Guard relationship.

I think primarily, our issues with democracy as we know it today, lie predominately with our antiquated version of representative democracy. I agree with the OP, that democracy is perhaps the best method we have to validate our leaders, however the 'battery of tests' scenario wouldn't necessarily fix a lot of the problems with democracy in North America.

First of all, if our problem is that our leaders are chosen by an uneducated populace, how about educating the populace? Or is that just too expensive? I know you can't control levels of intelligence, but you can get people more involved.

In this day and age, I also don't see the need for separate state and federal legislatures. (Hold on for one second, and hear me out...). I'm a big proponent of proportional representation. If each state, or group of states elected a certain number of representatives based on population, I don't see why federal decisions couldn't consist of a vote of all the state legislatures put together. This is the information age after all... no need to gather in the same room anymore...

Decentralize... bring most decisions down to a local level, and limit the powers of the executive. We can still maintain our 'checks and balances'...

At any rate, I'm rambling. The main point I'm trying to make, is that the issue isn't democracy, but our need to reform it, and make it more relevant to ordinary people.

Today's representative democracies aren't really democracy anyway. You only get to make one decision every few years with typically only two choices, neither of which you may like.

Why do people keep referring to communism and democracy like they alternatives to each other?

You can have communist democracy, you know?

Why do people keep referring to communism and democracy like they alternatives to each other?

You can have communist democracy, you know?

Indeed.

Of course, technically communism is democracy afterall with the abolition of the state and the 'democratic' control of the means of production.

Indeed.

Of course, technically communism is democracy afterall with the abolition of the state and the 'democratic' control of the means of production.

Exactly... many people seem ignorant of the fact that communism is an 'economic/social' model... not a 'political' one.

Let me elaborate:
-you will just be transporting the supposed incompetence of leaders to the point where passing the test will be guaranteed through corruption - since that will be the focus
-establishing guards over guards merely serves to cement the idea that a system is reaching its limits. Who will guard the guards? as my country's motto reads.
The people should watch them.. All government business (within reason) should be open to public scrutiny. Corruption at govenrment level is treason, pure and simple, and there should be sufficient punishment for it..

Uganda has a minimum academic requirement for its legislators and no political parties, and while it makes the caliber of politicians higher it also stems popular, ill-educated leaders. It was a good idea considering Idi Amin, but as with many ideas designed to curb the outgoing group of fascists, it did not prevent Youeri Massevini from becoming a dictator himself. Having said that it did stop the tribal inspired genocides in the south of the country - but not the religon inspired genocides in the North.

i like your views but i prefer this.


No elections.
1 leader or 1 centralized council.

People are poll'd on where they stand for issues.
IE
90% describe themselves as liberal.

And the council or leader acts accordingly.

As the council/leader are not elected, they are extremely experienced at governance and would need to work there way up.

The good thing about this is that if you went for the Council idea, parties can no longer corner the market and make a dictatorship, as the councillors all worked themselves there it is very likely they have different or opposing ideologies.

Ect

Eh, if you're going to do something radical with the election system, then be even more radical and hold elections by lottery.

Cool, and the money we earn with the lottery we can use to pay of the debts *nods*

The problem is that the richer people can buy more tickets thus have more chance to get into power.

Why do people keep referring to communism and democracy like they alternatives to each other?
Because "democracy" is equated to "democratic republic" in most conversation, and such a system is incompatible with died in the wool Marxist Communism.

So I started to think about alternatives. It seemed like the people had to have a choice as to who their leaders were. Otherwise, the government could not be truly representitive of the population.
Which isn't neccessarily a bad thing. Democracy is a means to an end (keeping the government responsible and making it respect the rights of the people while defending them from threats foriegn and domestic), not an end in and of itself.
People don't choose who gets candidacy, political parties do, and they don't pick their candidates based on leadership qualities, they just want to get into power, so they pick their candidates mainly on marketability.
So these same people who must be involved in the governing process are too stupid/ignorant to find a third party candidate of some competency?
So, how do you get people interested in the political process? How do you make sure that the candidates have real leadership skills? And how do you make sure that a lazy, stupid populace can't choose leaders so backwards and inept as to screw up the entire country?
You remove the populace from the equation? If they're so stupid and lazy that they need a massive and arcane process to keep them from fucking themselves over, why do we want them running the country?
how current their political beliefs are with vast majority opinions (85% plus scientific polls of the country)
'Sfunny, isn't it? Up until five minutes ago, I thought that you had the public election to insure that the politician's beliefs were with the majority of opinions.
All the necessary things that a leader should have will be tested and each participant will be given a point score. The top ten scores will be voted for, though political parties with more than two in the top ten will have their extras removed and the rest will be bumped up the list until each political party has a maximum of two in the list.
And how does one score all this? Will there be a study guide? Can there be extra credit?
The competition will be government funded but will be entirely created and supervised by a trustable third-party, all examinations will afterwards be thoroughly investigated for bribery, cheating, and/or bias and some serious punishments dealt out for anybody trying to screw with the system.
Question: If we can't keep corruption and inefficiency out of the current political process, how are we going to do it with an even more complicated process that puts more power in the hands of bureacracy?
Best of all, the whole thing will be free for the press to report on and record, and the scores as they are tallied will be immediately made public. Hopefully the public will get interested in cheering their favourite politicians on and it will drum up some more interest in the political process!
It would be just like those International SAT competitions they have on ESPN! Oh, wait, they don't have those. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that tests are boring?
This means political parties will have to put forward people with real political skill, education, and leadership qualities, not just people who are puppets or marketable as figureheads.
Or that your trustworthy third party will realize that you just handed them the keys to the kingdom and put their own puppets in play.
Probably impossible, but seems more likely than communism ever working to me.
That was a very cheap shot.

hold elections by lottery.

i don't get why this idea isn't talked about more often - it deals so nicely with many of the inherent problems of representative democracy.

oh, and while we're at it, we should limit the power of representatives and open up decision-making to wider participation at as many levels as possible. and switch away from systems that are designed to divide populations into winners and losers and towards systems that encourage actual debate and compromise.

but that's just crazy talk...

i don't get why this idea isn't talked about more often - it deals so nicely with many of the inherent problems of representative democracy.

oh, and while we're at it, we should limit the power of representatives and open up decision-making to wider participation at as many levels as possible. and switch away from systems that are designed to divide populations into winners and losers and towards systems that encourage actual debate and compromise.

but that's just crazy talk...

Actually, I'd like to see another form of 'democracy'... what I call "Advocate Democracy".

Let people cast their vote as they will, but stop those votes being AUTOMATICALLY tied to 'political parties'.

Instead of unions supporting a party, how about a union advocate? And union members can chose to give that advocate their vote, they are opting NOT to give that vote to a political party.

Similarly, if you REALLY want your vote to go towards a tobacco-lobby, let them have it. But, once you've used it, you've used it.

Or - if you live in a small town and dislike all the alternatives... how about setting up your mayor as advocate?


It would allow people who feel strongly about an issue, to SPECIFICALLY call for that issue to be represented.

Advocate Democracy is fine in principle but in practice it will result in loads of nutcases advocating free beer for horses and such like. This is particularly true in those nations where candidates are allocated free media time. Free advertising is always welcome from the advertiser's point of view.

To avoid this there is a deposit system set up, wherein you have to deposit a bond of X thousand units of money, which you receive back if you get more than y% of the vote. Now how do genuine single cause advocates handle that, they don't have the resources - so they join together to obtain the resources - Bingo more political parties.

Oh and on the Dmocracy x Communism thing. I was interpreting the original suggestion as meritocracy, which is not democracy and is incompatible with communism.

Advocate Democracy is fine in principle but in practice it will result in loads of nutcases advocating free beer for horses and such like. This is particularly true in those nations where candidates are allocated free media time. Free advertising is always welcome from the advertiser's point of view.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

However, what we have at the moment, is that a person might be a member of a union (which applies pressure on voters and parties) AND might vote for a party. He or she might also contribute to a religious group, which might also pressure politics. He or she might ALSO have some other groups(s) he or she belongs to... like a pro-choice group, or a 'pro-life' group.

What Advocate Democracy would do - to an extent, is focus democratic desires.

If Person A does have political, religious, and other interests... they get ONE vote, to use as they see fit.

If a group does NOT get voted for (set a minimum vote limit... like 1000 votes or something)... they are not ALLOWED representation.

Think about it... if lobby groups were forbidden access, but were allowed to field representatives IN the process - it would change the complexion of government. (Especially if you 'weighted' the power of the elected candidate, by how many votes they received).

Thus, it would be in the interests of a lobby group, to STOP people voting for their own party or religion... in order to give more weight to the advocated issue.

A brief idea of how it could split:

Person A likes Politician # 6 for government. Person A gives his vote to # 6.

Person B likes Party x - so they give their vote to the party.

Person C likes pressure group green. They give their vote to the green group.

But each person only gets ONE vote... so they have to pick what is most important... a specific issue, a religious vote, a vote for a given party...

And - if 50% of ALL voters decided to give their vote to Politician # 6... well then, Politician # 6 would effectively have 50% of the 'votes' on any given issue.

(I see it as a way of giving accountability to the voter).

I got this under control. Once I am dictator, we'll have no need for elections.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

However, what we have at the moment, is that a person might be a member of a union (which applies pressure on voters and parties) AND might vote for a party. He or she might also contribute to a religious group, which might also pressure politics. He or she might ALSO have some other groups(s) he or she belongs to... like a pro-choice group, or a 'pro-life' group.

What Advocate Democracy would do - to an extent, is focus democratic desires.

If Person A does have political, religious, and other interests... they get ONE vote, to use as they see fit.

If a group does NOT get voted for (set a minimum vote limit... like 1000 votes or something)... they are not ALLOWED representation.

Think about it... if lobby groups were forbidden access, but were allowed to field representatives IN the process - it would change the complexion of government. (Especially if you 'weighted' the power of the elected candidate, by how many votes they received).

Thus, it would be in the interests of a lobby group, to STOP people voting for their own party or religion... in order to give more weight to the advocated issue.

A brief idea of how it could split:

Person A likes Politician # 6 for government. Person A gives his vote to # 6.

Person B likes Party x - so they give their vote to the party.

Person C likes pressure group green. They give their vote to the green group.

But each person only gets ONE vote... so they have to pick what is most important... a specific issue, a religious vote, a vote for a given party...

And - if 50% of ALL voters decided to give their vote to Politician # 6... well then, Politician # 6 would effectively have 50% of the 'votes' on any given issue.

(I see it as a way of giving accountability to the voter).

I think the closest you're going to get with that is a proportional representation system where seats are delegated to parties based on their percentage of the popular vote. That way, just because your riding or consituency is heavily dominated by one particular group, doesn't mean your point of view isn't somehow represented in all future debate.

You say that like it's a bad thing. Because it is a bad thing. People do not handle excessive amounts of choice very well. If whenb it comes to time to vote they have to select 1 option out of thousands then their ability to exercise their right to choose their representative is severely compromised. If you were told that you could go into the biggest music store in your area and chose just 1 song, could you do so, and more to the point, would you not wish that you had chosen a different one three days later?

However, what we have at the moment, is that a person might be a member of a union (which applies pressure on voters and parties) AND might vote for a party. He or she might also contribute to a religious group, which might also pressure politics. He or she might ALSO have some other groups(s) he or she belongs to... like a pro-choice group, or a 'pro-life' group.
Yes, life is complex and there are many ways in which the individual can influence the political climate in their country. I see no problem with this.

What Advocate Democracy would do - to an extent, is focus democratic desires.

If Person A does have political, religious, and other interests... they get ONE vote, to use as they see fit.

If a group does NOT get voted for (set a minimum vote limit... like 1000 votes or something)... they are not ALLOWED representation.

Think about it... if lobby groups were forbidden access, but were allowed to field representatives IN the process - it would change the complexion of government. (Especially if you 'weighted' the power of the elected candidate, by how many votes they received).

Thus, it would be in the interests of a lobby group, to STOP people voting for their own party or religion... in order to give more weight to the advocated issue.

All you are doing is adding complexity to the electoral procedure. The actual political influence that goers on between elections of pressure groups, churches, unions etc will still go on, and people will still be part of these groups even if they voted for candidate #6. What you are effectively saying is that people will be able to vote for only one aspect of the many issues they are interested in. That is removing representation. One of the aspects of a representative democracy is that the voter has a representative. Under advocate democracy only those that voted for this or that person would have a representative. Those that voted for green isssues, or the slightly left of centre party, would not have anyone from whom they could demand actions.

A brief idea of how it could split:

Person A likes Politician # 6 for government. Person A gives his vote to # 6.

Person B likes Party x - so they give their vote to the party.

Person C likes pressure group green. They give their vote to the green group.

But each person only gets ONE vote... so they have to pick what is most important... a specific issue, a religious vote, a vote for a given party...

And - if 50% of ALL voters decided to give their vote to Politician # 6... well then, Politician # 6 would effectively have 50% of the 'votes' on any given issue.

(I see it as a way of giving accountability to the voter).

So how is a government formed under this system? An alliance of Politicians #1 through 7 with Party Y and pressure group blue (assuming this combination has a ajority of the votes cast) is formed. How is this many headed beast (at least nine heads there) supposed to run the country?

He may well be, but why, and about what. Thinking about it he is inevitably going to be wrong in something as we all make mistakes (except Myrth that is).

Back to the suggestion:

This would result in our having academics as political leaders. Instead of passing through the apprenticship of garnering internal support in their party, doing the ground level campaigning etc. that teaches politicians how to negotiate deals and so on, our leaders would be capable of and competent to write theses on obscure elements of political history and theory but know nothing of how to deal with real people in real situations. No improvement there then. But yes it is more likely to work than communism.

Alien Born?

"though political parties with more than two in the top ten will have their extras removed and the rest will be bumped up the list until each political party has a maximum of two in the list."


Why would you do that? ?!

Alien Born?

Who else would it be? Read the sig VO (no one else would possibly have that as their sig now would they.)

Sounds like a new reality show! Survivor Election! You've been voted on to the island.

Eh, if you're going to do something radical with the election system, then be even more radical and hold elections by lottery.

Don't we? If you have the funds of a lottery winner, you can be a politician.

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. -Plato

You see, In my mind, its like this you see, the problem is as follows (this is my idea): Only thoes people power hungry enough to want power end up in power. Not enough people are noble enough to give up a lot of their life to make the world a better place, so only semi-corrupt people end up in power.

In essence, the problem is that politics is voluntary, but if you made it involuntary it would infringe on rights. Although demarchy is intriguing. The problem with meritocracy is that it requires an infallable definiton of merit.

EDIT: As I was writing this I remembered something I though of once. It was a sort of alternate party system. In it all parties are Single Issue (lots of parties) and electoral fusion is very legal. You would vote with porportional representation with multiple votes. This way you vote for the issues you care about (rather than the parties you feel loyal to).

Let me elaborate:
-you will just be transporting the supposed incompetence of leaders to the point where passing the test will be guaranteed through corruption - since that will be the focus
-establishing guards over guards merely serves to cement the idea that a system is reaching its limits. Who will guard the guards? as my country's motto reads.

I'm considering changing mine to "Who will bring mail to the mailmen?" :D

Who else would it be? Read the sig VO (no one else would possibly have that as their sig now would they.)

I've missed ya, where have you been?

The issue with democracy is not that people choose the wrong candidate, it is that they choose collectively.

You want to limit the candidates, but because the collective chooses, there will always be a huge portion of the population who feels they have an idiot for a leader, regardless of his capability.

I'm considering changing mine to "Who will bring mail to the mailmen?" :D
That's brilliant. Do it, dude.

The issue with democracy is not that people choose the wrong candidate, it is that they choose collectively.

You want to limit the candidates, but because the collective chooses, there will always be a huge portion of the population who feels they have an idiot for a leader, regardless of his capability.

though this can potentially be lessened (to some extent) with, for example, condorcet-style voting that tends to focus on the least objectionable option.

though this can potentially be lessened (to some extent) with, for example, condorcet-style voting that tends to focus on the least objectionable option.

Federalism is the best way to do it. Break democracy down to the smallest and local population possible, optimal when entered into freely through self-interest.

I think the closest you're going to get with that is a proportional representation system where seats are delegated to parties based on their percentage of the popular vote. That way, just because your riding or consituency is heavily dominated by one particular group, doesn't mean your point of view isn't somehow represented in all future debate.

Proportional representation IS a step in the right direction (don't see it as likely in the US, though... to much vested interest)... but it doesn't go far enough. It still leaves the presure groups and lobbies as political entities but NOT accountable in the same way 'parties' are.

Because it is a bad thing. People do not handle excessive amounts of choice very well. If whenb it comes to time to vote they have to select 1 option out of thousands then their ability to exercise their right to choose their representative is severely compromised. If you were told that you could go into the biggest music store in your area and chose just 1 song, could you do so, and more to the point, would you not wish that you had chosen a different one three days later?


VNV Nation - Solitary (single).

Don't even need to think about it. Wouldn't change my mind three days later.

What you SEEM to be saying... is that democracy is compromised if you give people choices? If that is TRUE... the flaw is in the system, surely... because if people can't make decisions, then they have no place voting.

I also think you are underestimating the average Joe or Joanne. If we assume an example of a Democrat, who very much likes Howard Dean, is BIG in ecological preservation issues, is pro-life, and pro-gay-marriage...

Yes - there are THOUSANDS of candidates POSSIBLE. But, this person polarisies himself/herself to 5 or 6 options. Then, he/she has only to decide which of those options to support.


Yes, life is complex and there are many ways in which the individual can influence the political climate in their country. I see no problem with this.


I see no problem with influence. I do see a problem when you have a governmental system that allows input from groups that weild political power, but are not held to the same accountability as the 'parties'.


All you are doing is adding complexity to the electoral procedure. The actual political influence that goers on between elections of pressure groups, churches, unions etc will still go on, and people will still be part of these groups even if they voted for candidate #6. What you are effectively saying is that people will be able to vote for only one aspect of the many issues they are interested in. That is removing representation. One of the aspects of a representative democracy is that the voter has a representative. Under advocate democracy only those that voted for this or that person would have a representative. Those that voted for green isssues, or the slightly left of centre party, would not have anyone from whom they could demand actions.


No - we seem to have crossed wires... you are arguing against a form of the model that I haven't suggested.

Yes - people will still go to church, be in unions, etc. But, if I cast my vote for Green Politician One, I can't back the union. It's fairly simple... It's not adding complexity, it's focusing.

Also - I am not saying people can only vote on the issues that interest them. In the election year, I select Green Politician One, nominally because he heavily reflects my opinions about the environment. He is now my elected representative until the next election - so, if I was careless, and picked a 'green' politician who ALSO happens to be a white-supremacist, I'm going to get KEEN advocacy on some issue... but my representative is going to poorly reflect some of my other politics. But - I will get the represntation I want on the environment.

Is this a heavily flawed system...? Only if you think people SHOULD vote without reading manifestoes.


So how is a government formed under this system? An alliance of Politicians #1 through 7 with Party Y and pressure group blue (assuming this combination has a ajority of the votes cast) is formed. How is this many headed beast (at least nine heads there) supposed to run the country?

How does a government run a country now? It calls votes on issues, and the majority basically says jump. Whether you have two parties, or 900 different advocates, the principle remains the same.

VNV Nation - Solitary (single).

Don't even need to think about it. Wouldn't change my mind three days later.
A very monothematic appreciation of music then (not a criticism, just an observation). You are unusual in that, the majority of people tend to have their specific, rather than general, preferences change rather rapidly over time.

What you SEEM to be saying... is that democracy is compromised if you give people choices? If that is TRUE... the flaw is in the system, surely... because if people can't make decisions, then they have no place voting.
Unfortunately the vast majority of the world have no place voting if you require voting to be an act of informed choice. This is not their fault however, it is that they simply do not have the information to be able to make informed decisions. If you then go ahead and ask them to make a more specific decision, the amount of information they are going to need to be able to do this in a responsible manner is mind boggling. They would have to be able to evaluate the character of politician X against the platform of party Y and the aims of pressure group Z. Then, after evaluating these, they would have to decide which of them best fits with their personal long term interests.

I also think you are underestimating the average Joe or Joanne. If we assume an example of a Democrat, who very much likes Howard Dean, is BIG in ecological preservation issues, is pro-life, and pro-gay-marriage...

Yes - there are THOUSANDS of candidates POSSIBLE. But, this person polarisies himself/herself to 5 or 6 options. Then, he/she has only to decide which of those options to support.
To reduce the choices to 5 or 6 the voter is eliminating thousands of options on an uninformed basis. You have just defined them as having no place voting. Currently they have the choice between 5 or 6 options (in the USA - here in Brazil it can be as many as 20) and this is a choice about which they can inform themselves. They have a chance of being responsible voting members of the society. If you then say that in addition to these 5 or 6 politicians they have to choose between them and a couple of hundred religions, a dozen political parties, and probably a few thousand pressure groups, you have removed any possibility of them making that allimportant informed choice.



I see no problem with influence. I do see a problem when you have a governmental system that allows input from groups that weild political power, but are not held to the same accountability as the 'parties'.
Changing the electoral system will not change that. In fact there is no way to change it, not even shifting to direct democracy will change it. The NRA, for example, has considerable influence in parts of the USA and is not politically accountable. The same applies to the AAA, though less controversially. Pressure groups weild political power because they are opinion formers. Until you get people to make up their own minds, on every iussue, in an independant and impartial manner, then these groups will continue to have influence. Sorry, but that is the way it is.

Yes - people will still go to church, be in unions, etc. But, if I cast my vote for Green Politician One, I can't back the union. It's fairly simple... It's not adding complexity, it's focusing.
They vote once, and then for the next four years they can not back the Union. What is going to stop them? If they back the union then they back the union. You can not legislate support out of existence.

Also - I am not saying people can only vote on the issues that interest them. In the election year, I select Green Politician One, nominally because he heavily reflects my opinions about the environment. He is now my elected representative until the next election - so, if I was careless, and picked a 'green' politician who ALSO happens to be a white-supremacist, I'm going to get KEEN advocacy on some issue... but my representative is going to poorly reflect some of my other politics. But - I will get the represntation I want on the environment.
So how is this any different from the existing representative democracy. I vote for X and as a result I get the whole package that X brings. It may be that I only want 65% of that package, but it is an all or nothing deal.

Is this a heavily flawed system...? Only if you think people SHOULD vote without reading manifestoes.
So we are just multiplying the number of manifestos. Each politician will have their personal manifesto, each party will have theirs as now, each pressure group will also have a manifesto etc. Too much - information overload brings the system down to a crashing halt, and the cost of campaigning on all of these levels cripples the economy for good. (The only winners here would be the marketing agencies!)



How does a government run a country now? It calls votes on issues, and the majority basically says jump. Whether you have two parties, or 900 different advocates, the principle remains the same.
Wrong! Who decides on the issues to be voted? Who creates the political agenda in the apparatus of government? There is a leader in any government who is responsible for setting the order of business in the government chambers. Who is this to be, and how is that to be decided. At the moment how is the Leader of the House of Representatives chosen? Under your system how would this work? This is what it means to govern. The votes on the issues are only the final stage. The real governing is done in deciding what will, and what will not be debated, what will be done by decree, who will decide that.

Wrong! Who decides on the issues to be voted? Who creates the political agenda in the apparatus of government? There is a leader in any government who is responsible for setting the order of business in the government chambers. Who is this to be, and how is that to be decided. At the moment how is the Leader of the House of Representatives chosen? Under your system how would this work? This is what it means to govern. The votes on the issues are only the final stage. The real governing is done in deciding what will, and what will not be debated, what will be done by decree, who will decide that.

I would recommend taking a look at Switzerland's political system. The Federal level is very limited, and anybody, including a citizen, can put forward legislation for review by Parliament. Referendum's are commonplace, and I would hardly classify their economy as sub-par.

I would recommend taking a look at Switzerland's political system. The Federal level is very limited, and anybody, including a citizen, can put forward legislation for review by Parliament. Referendum's are commonplace, and I would hardly classify their economy as sub-par.

Technically anybody here in Brazil can put forward legislation. All they need is a million or so people to sign a petition.
Switzerland is a special case in politics due to its geography more than anything else. The country is a collection of cantons, which would be in USA terms counties, each of which is highly independent of the others as they are effectively different valleys in a mountainous terrain. The whole political system is much more community driven, with local interests taking precedence over national or international ones.

In my view it is as near to the ideal application of democracy as it is possible to get, but it will not work as a model for other nations which are active on the international political scene or where the national interest is seen as superior to the local. Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Andorra, The Isle of Man etc. also have almost idealised systems. It appears that this is possible only when there is a good chance that you will know your representative personally, or if not, then one or other of your friends will.

Technically anybody here in Brazil can put forward legislation. All they need is a million or so people to sign a petition.
Switzerland is a special case in politics due to its geography more than anything else. The country is a collection of cantons, which would be in USA terms counties, each of which is highly independent of the others as they are effectively different valleys in a mountainous terrain. The whole political system is much more community driven, with local interests taking precedence over national or international ones.

In my view it is as near to the ideal application of democracy as it is possible to get, but it will not work as a model for other nations which are active on the international political scene or where the national interest is seen as superior to the local. Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Andorra, The Isle of Man etc. also have almost idealised systems. It appears that this is possible only when there is a good chance that you will know your representative personally, or if not, then one or other of your friends will.

I agree with you that Switzerland has a near-ideal system, but I don't think that their method would be impossible to implement in larger countries. I have a hard time envisioning it in the US. But I don't see any reason why it couldn't work in Canada. Leaving regional issues with each individual region sounds like the right way to go about doing things, as does eliminating the rediculous 'first-past-the-post' system.

For example, if you clearly determined the responsibilities for the federal level, and left everything else to the discretion of the provinces, you would probably significantly ameliorate the sovereignty issue in Quebec. Also, why would French be a national language, when Chinese would probably be more appropriate for BC?

I think it's only a matter of time until serious democratic reform reaches Canada. It may take continual minority governments to make it happen though.

A very monothematic appreciation of music then (not a criticism, just an observation). You are unusual in that, the majority of people tend to have their specific, rather than general, preferences change rather rapidly over time.


Jumping to conclusions... you seem to be doing it a lot. Just because I KNOW what I want, doesn't make me monothematic. The last record I bought was the new System of a Down album, before that Deep Forest, and before that Tori Amos. Recently I have been listening to a rotation of Hank Williams III, Shanti Shanti and Group X.

A person CAN know what they WANT, and still have a broad spectrum of interests.


Unfortunately the vast majority of the world have no place voting if you require voting to be an act of informed choice. This is not their fault however, it is that they simply do not have the information to be able to make informed decisions. If you then go ahead and ask them to make a more specific decision, the amount of information they are going to need to be able to do this in a responsible manner is mind boggling. They would have to be able to evaluate the character of politician X against the platform of party Y and the aims of pressure group Z. Then, after evaluating these, they would have to decide which of them best fits with their personal long term interests.


You SEEM to be claiming that ignorance is okay in politics. That, somehow, INFORMING voters is bad for democracy?

I would argue that - if you have votes being cast by uninformed persons, you don't have 'democracy' at all... you have popularity contests.

When I lived in the UK, I was a voter. I voted based on the statements made by the politicians I supported. I thought that, if I was going to use my vote, it was important that I knew something about the agenda of the person I support. I don't see why that is something you see as unnecessary, or beyond the average voter.

Are you seriously telling me that you think it is BAD politics, to look at the agenda of the person you might vote for?


To reduce the choices to 5 or 6 the voter is eliminating thousands of options on an uninformed basis. You have just defined them as having no place voting. Currently they have the choice between 5 or 6 options (in the USA - here in Brazil it can be as many as 20) and this is a choice about which they can inform themselves. They have a chance of being responsible voting members of the society. If you then say that in addition to these 5 or 6 politicians they have to choose between them and a couple of hundred religions, a dozen political parties, and probably a few thousand pressure groups, you have removed any possibility of them making that allimportant informed choice.


Again - missing the point. Your average Christian is not likely to take MOST 'religious' candidates into serious consideration... unless they ehar something about the AGENDA of one of those individuals that they think might gel with their own agenda... regardless of the religious divide.

If you think Union representation is bad, you automatically drastically reduce the chances that you will support a Union candidate.

So - when it comes down to it, the average voter probably WOULD be left with maybe half a dozen candidates to chose from. But, those would be the candidates THEY had 'selected' from a long list.

Plus - of course - I never mentioned removing parties. If someone wants to give their vote to one of the 'big parties'... they still could.

I really don't understand... constantly, you seem to be arguing that voters should be PROTECTED FROM choice.


Changing the electoral system will not change that. In fact there is no way to change it, not even shifting to direct democracy will change it. The NRA, for example, has considerable influence in parts of the USA and is not politically accountable. The same applies to the AAA, though less controversially. Pressure groups weild political power because they are opinion formers. Until you get people to make up their own minds, on every iussue, in an independant and impartial manner, then these groups will continue to have influence. Sorry, but that is the way it is.


Be sorry if you wish, but that is not 'how it is'.

I'm suggesting removing the current scheme of lobbying and pressuring and supporting, and allowing only those 'Advocated' to be involved in the process. Thus - a lobby group COULD be 'officially' present WITH A VOICE, in the government... but ONLY as an 'official' group, and only with the 'support' consonant to the voters who chose that group.

I personally also think the referendum system is drastically underused - especially for nations that call themselves 'democratic'... and could curb the kinds of problems you seem to be discussing.

But again - I am confused by the angle you appear to be arguing... that people somehow NEED 'pressure groups', etc... because they need to be protected from making up their own minds...?



They vote once, and then for the next four years they can not back the Union. What is going to stop them? If they back the union then they back the union. You can not legislate support out of existence.


Yes - I might still be a member of my Union... and I might be behind it one hundred percent... but, in the model I suggest, my 'backing' the Union un-officially is reduced as a political tool because my vote has been cast elsewhere, meaning it ISN'T part of the 'voting block' of the the Union.


So how is this any different from the existing representative democracy. I vote for X and as a result I get the whole package that X brings. It may be that I only want 65% of that package, but it is an all or nothing deal.


Yes? It's different from the existing model by such a huge factor that I have to wonder if your question is rhetorical.

For one, it doesn't ELIMINATE 'two-party-politics'... but it does give EVERY voter a choice about where they stand on two-party-politics. And, instead of a vote against two party politics being 'wasted'... which is largely how it is currently seen, in Advocate Democracy, a vote against two-party-politics can actually place a representative of your agenda IN government.


So we are just multiplying the number of manifestos. Each politician will have their personal manifesto, each party will have theirs as now, each pressure group will also have a manifesto etc. Too much - information overload brings the system down to a crashing halt, and the cost of campaigning on all of these levels cripples the economy for good. (The only winners here would be the marketing agencies!)


That is already true. Every politician has a 'voting history', and is on public record for any number of statements of ideology and belief. Each party DOES have a 'manifesto'... and so do pressure groups.

You seem to be attacking what we already HAVE as being impractical.

You don't HAVE to campaign ALL those agendas... although you could if that was how you chose to spend your money. The aim isn't to FORCE information on people... or even to release information that is currently unavailable... the information is ALREADY in the market.


Wrong! Who decides on the issues to be voted? Who creates the political agenda in the apparatus of government? There is a leader in any government who is responsible for setting the order of business in the government chambers. Who is this to be, and how is that to be decided. At the moment how is the Leader of the House of Representatives chosen? Under your system how would this work? This is what it means to govern. The votes on the issues are only the final stage. The real governing is done in deciding what will, and what will not be debated, what will be done by decree, who will decide that.

I don't see why you see a problem here. We are talking democracy, after all... so you let every voice be heard, and then you let the representatives make their decisions.

If you NEED a 'leader of the house of representatives' role, you can always decide a mechanism for that... such a candidate could either be the representative with the most voters behind him... or you could let a simple majority vote of ALL representatives pick the 'leader'.

You are constructing obstacles where there is no need for any to be.