Improving democracy?

[Adelina]

Currently, in the democratic system, the masses vote for a leader, and a leader is appointed who resonates with mass consciousness.
This may seem fair for most people getting what they want,

but what about where 'most people' are not fully conscious?
And when what they choose but is actually not in their best interest?

Or when surface of a prospective leader appeal to them, such as celebrity, down to earth qualities, anti-intellectualism, etc?

It seems that democracy tends to slow the progress of a nation, by appointing leaders of mass and external or surface appeal, rather than true leadership ability.


How can this system for appointing leaders be improved?

[ar81]

A president is like a CEO of a company, he is in charge of the rudder to set a course for a country and manage its resources.
You as citizen are like a shareholder who invest in taxes so CEO has money to work with.
In exchange a company should return dividends to shareholders.

If a CEO is using company for his games of power, as shareholder you need to audit him and his board and be demanding. Your pocket is in the middle of it, so you better move.

The problem of democracy nowadays is that presidents have become careless about problems of a country. They still want to create empires and tell bullcrap to citizens like virtual global threats, so they are distracted from important things like bringing welfare to citizens of your country.

This is why politicians do as they please and become corrupted. They selfevaluate. Once you become auditor and be able to evaluate how good their work is, you won't bite their crap and you are on your way of demanding results.

Capiutalism is about results, and your pocket will show results.

[Brutha]

I think it's a mistake to think in a mental model of having a single leader.
Today you have always groups of people in politics that lead together.

[Akashic_Librarian]

That may be Brutha, but it still doesn't invalidate that point that most people are low-consious masochists.

I believe the system for government is a bad one, democracy is only good when people are intelligent.

However on the flipside you have the probem that it will be merely the people with enough money, who will be elected, if the system is changed.

Besides how do we evaluate someone who is only human like the rest of us?

I suppose this is where the idea of God picking Kings and Queens, came from.

All we can hope for really is someone who has a good grasp on reality, is intelligent, fair, but steadfast in his/her convictions, who do we know that could be like that...

*cough* Steve *cough*

Who will take up the reigns and impose themselves upon us for our own good!

Its the only way folks, as Lavey said [when asked about why he wrote the satanic bible {paraphrased}], "I did it because if I didn't someone less qualified would have"

[Brutha]

That may be Brutha, but it still doesn't invalidate that point that most people are low-consious masochists.

I believe the system for government is a bad one, democracy is only good when people are intelligent.

You need to understand how the system works to have a fruitful discussion about how to improve it.

[Adelina]

I think the founding fathers probably did not intend democracy to function the way it currently is, and I can think of many recent examples, both in the US and in other countries with democratic systems, where the masses elect a leader based on 'mass appeal', but whose policies and time in office actually adversely affect the country.

Is there a class of intellectuals, or independent academic groups, that can choose the political leaders in the interest of the country and world? Based on higher and stable values like growth, consciousness, stability, etc?


===
Probably when democracy was first established, most people who voted were intelligent and educated.

By spreading out the vote, the emphasis on less important factors becomes weighted, and political leadership sometimes becomes diluted.


Also can see the phenomenon in the 'young people vote' campaigns. Shouldn't we first encourage young people to be educated about issues and politics, rather than encourage them first to vote? As with the rest of the population.

[ar81]

Originally Posted by Adelina

Probably when democracy was first established, most people who voted were intelligent and educated.

With the upcoming ideologies, even educated people act like politically programmed robots.
In any case, what you point out seems more a problem of education and values and not democracy.

[Brutha]

Is there a class of intellectuals, or independent academic groups, that can choose the political leaders in the interest of the country and world?

The practical consequence of that approach would be to give groups like the Council of Foreign Relations or the Bilberbergers a lot more power than they have currently.

Some people in this forum think that those groups already are to powerful and are already making public policy anyway.

In praxis the balance of powers is always important.

[mark7]

there is no such thing as democracy,
no matter what party gets in the agenda is the same,
how many years have the parties been saying if we gain control we will do this and that and make the people more wealthy, with better standards of living ?
yet has anyones standard of living increased ?, no!, we just have more stuff to purchase thats all.
you cant retire any earlier than 50 years ago, it still usually takes all your life to purchase your home, i came to realise this years ago, but this is probably the wrong place to discuse things of that nature lol, so ill shut my trap ha ha ha

[Adelina]

Maybe in the future it can be computer selected. Pick the candidate based on their parameters, and their TRUE intent and ability to perform in office.
No show or mass appeal or celebrity needed.

[schola]

The position of President comes with a lot more power than the founding fathers intended. One solution would be to give the powers that the President and Federal Government has stolen from the Sovereign People back where it belongs.

It is very hard to abuse a power that one doesn't have, right? The founding fathers were very aware of this fact. So they sought to create a very decentralized government. One where even a tyrant in the most powerful position in government would have a lot of trouble in attempting to abuse the system.

Unfortunately, the elitist tyrants were able to corrupt even the brilliant system our founding fathers devised. Hence the state of things today.

[pkeod]

We could improve the system by having non-partial AIs run our government for us Our government is a democratic republic, but acts more like a reverse socialist society; our government (the people in power and the people who bribe them) capitalizes on profits and socializes losses to the citizens (what could Bush care if he drove our economy into the ground? he's got plenty of more money to play with now more than ever!).

[Still Growing]

if you think about it humans are programmed with many mental faults. We have a hard time separating data from our own biases. This causes our civilizations to progress slowly.

We need more wars more dictators and more mistakes to come up with an improved democracy.

Democracy as you know it is still in its infancy.

[Adelina]

^^^ Okay, but what would that improved system look like?

[mark7]

first of all money needs to be banned,
there is no eason at all why we have a devision of wealth apart from greed,
any party that gets into power that does not address this head on is a total waste of time in my oppinion.

if someone is supposedly doing something for the good of the nation, then they are doing it for the good of "ALL" it citizens, but in reality this is not what happens, descisions are made in order to help big business and frre up constraints on them so that profits can be maximised.

only a small percentage of this profit ever filters down to the working class
the bulk of it is put into the top 2% 's pockets and the rest is spent on remaining competative
in a free and fair society there is no place for competition, as with any competition there is only ever one winner and many loosers,
for someone to gain a dollar, someone else has to loose a dollar.

all the things you buy in your daily life could still be had without the use of competition, the same businesses would still produce the same choice of goods and be working to develope new goods, none of this would change , and ive gone right off track lol sorry i could ramble about this stuff for hours,

how to improve democracy!

any party that wishes to put its self up for election is given free airtime slots by the broadcast networks, of equal time, this would take away the problem of big business funding a certain party for its own ends, ie policy change

and therefore giving any party no matter how many millionaires it has in its pocket an equal shot at the presidency, as the people voters would get an equal hearing from all prospective parties, and not just the ones who have enough money to sway public sentiment,
as long as the elections are based on who has the most funds, you will always have a 3 party system and nothing will ever change!, all the 3 main parties have the same main aggendas, they are essentially the same party just with a slightly different slant on things and a differnet spokes person,
bush is related to the queen of england, so is chenney, so are the clintons, dont believe me look it up : )
the world is governed by a select few families, with different cousins and nephews comming to the helm and has been so for over 100 years

[schola]

Originally Posted by mark7

first of all money needs to be banned,
there is no eason at all why we have a devision of wealth apart from greed,
any party that gets into power that does not address this head on is a total waste of time in my oppinion.

What would you replace money with if you ban it? How would you facilitate the transition. It wouldn't be fair to abolish everyone's savings over night.

There are many drawbacks to capitalism and the concept of money in general, but so far I haven't seen any alternative solutions. I'm all ears if you have ideas.

I'm not sure we could ever get rid of money, but perhaps we could tie it to a more something more equitable, like land, or time?

[mark7]

it has to be constrained to time, it doesnt mater what job you do, the rate is the same, its is based on the time you put in, if you want a less materialistic life, you dont work as many hours and so on, there would be a minimum 4 hour shift though in any job,

you would have to negate peoples savings and also the millions some people have hoarded away otherwise the old system will just resurface within time,
we need to start from scratch with everyone on an equal footing, basically this will abolish poverty, there will no longer be the "have nots"

you have to think along the lines of , everything that is done in society is done for the benefit of humanity as a whole, not how can i make the most ammount of money for the least ammount of work, this will also have the effect of putting the right people in the right jobs,

you will no longer get certain families funding the education of their sons or daughters to become a doctor or a lawyer because it pays well, but people will go into careers because they are interested in the career,

i have met hundreds of people in my life that clearly do not have any interest in their job or providing a good service, they are only doing the job because it pays well,

the system will work if implemented, but the mega rich elite will always put the blockers on it, as they will seace to have the power and control they now enjoy, it is morally wrong, but every year we put in power people that only wish to keep the status quo, they have no interest in doing whats right only what is profitable,

until this changes will will always have poverty, you will always have the devision between rich and poor,

every job is essential to society, if the people that brush the streets at night suddenly stop, within 6 months there will be rats and disease everywhere, if all truck drivers suddenly stop work, within 2 weeks, the country will come to a stand still, because there wioll be no food in the stores, no fuel at the gas station,

so why does one person get paid $5000 a week and another $200 a week,

heres an example,
my dad is a coded welder, hes 63 now, has worked 7 days a week since i can remember, he has just paid of his mortgage,
yet you can take another person that only works 5 days a week, doesnt have to lye on his back in mud and rain, snow and ice , yet he will get paid 5 times what my dad does ???

if my dad and all other welders stoped going out and welding the machines up when they break, the country would come to a halt,
its not rocket science,

you are indoctrinated into a system that forces you to think one person or career is more valuable than another to create devision in society

ive not even read what ive just wrote lol, so you will have to forgive me if it comes across as rambleing : )
its just a habit i have i right what comes into my mind at the time, instead of doctoring or sensoring it,

[schola]

mark7,

Who will enforce this new economy? To put in place your plan you would need an authoritarian government. That government with all its centralized power would be subject to infiltration by the same greedy elitists that control things now.

The international banksters wouldn't be able to have the power that they do right now without the complicity of the big government.

No, the solution would have to be one that could be implemented on the grass roots level.

[escapee]

so why does one person get paid $5000 a week and another $200 a week,

In a capitalist society, the job market is determined by demand and supply. The money and reward goes to the area of high demand and limited supply so that the demand can be met (though at high price) to keep the system working. If you would like a society where people value a janitor and a nuclear scientist ( extremely high risk, knowledge intensive & high stress ) the same, then you can maybe consider North Korea, but beware, even the North korean are slowly opening up to freer economic system to generate growth and reduce the risk of another disaster induced nation wide famine.

Where do you all think the money shall go in the next 5-10 years ?? IMO.. It shall (continue) to go to energy sector, energy related engineering, viable alternative energy and etc.

[mark7]

hmmm should he not be doing the job for moral reasons, ie he has the ability to aquire this knowledge through his learning and understanding of the subject, and then apply that for the good of all civilisation rather than monetary gain, the risk factor doesnt come into it if your doing something selflessly, , the idea that someone should just move to south korea is a typical narrowminded response,
if suddenly all the road sweepers got up and left the country, would this then create a high demand for a scarse commodity ? : ) and thus hike up the wage value or would the country collapse before this ?

to wish to keep the current system of devision of wealth is a display of selfishness and self worth,
ill leave you with that thought

[mark7]

schola
why would you need an authoritarian government to implement something that will benefit 99% of the population ?

you only need authoritarianism where the people have to be held under the system because they reject its values
who in their right mind would reject a system that provides everything availible, to everyone and not just those who have the most money

[escapee]

hmmm should he not be doing the job for moral reasons, ie he has the ability to aquire this knowledge through his learning and understanding of the subject, and then apply that for the good of all civilisation rather than monetary gain, the risk factor doesnt come into it if your doing something selflessly, , the idea that someone should just move to south korea is a typical narrowminded response,

How nice is it for Bill gates to earn the same reward of a Janitor ( 1 lunch + 1 diner in communist society ) while giving away free & full copies of windows to all. ( I certainly wish so )

Unfortunately, Human brain does not work the way that you described. Otherwise, the former soviet union would not have collapsed and the North Korean would not have begged for food aid from her neighbors.

A 100% Communism/socialism has failed the society because of low productivity and high level of corruption. A 100% capitalist society will mostly lead to a sharp division between the poor and rich. This is why i think a functional society needs to strike a balance between the two extremes. I consider Charity organization (some funded by the filthy rich capitalist ) a form of socialist elements to help the needy. Government taxing the riches at "appropriate percentage" to provide "efficient & free public service" is another form of socialist elements. So, A mixture of capitalist & socialist elements are the best system I can think of for the advancement of society at the moment.

[mark7]

hmmm did not bill gates steal most of the windows operating system from someone else along with the principle of the mouse ????,

we are not talking about communism of which i know a great deal having read all the works of karl marx and friedrich engels and this is not about the distinction between proletarians and the bourgeois,

its about the ethics behind a democratic society, which we do not have, read democracy "all members of the society have equal access to power"
where in a capitalist system power is equated the the ammount of currency a person or person posses,

without money you have no power or influence over any descisions made,
democrasy is the principle that power is situated in the hands of the masses with an elected few placed in a position to carry out the will of the masses,
still think you live in a democrasy ???

the former soviet union has more billionaires than any other country on the planet, google it if you need to : )

as for the comment " the human brain does not work the way you described"
hmmm mine does
and the only thing that would stop anyone elses brain from functioning in this way, is either the need to hold power over another person, usually brought on through low self asteam or bad upbringing
or the total disreguard for other peoples needs or worth, usually brough on by selfishness which again has its root in upbringing.

so if a person has low self asteam and is selfish, should they really have presidence other another persons right to a good life ?

me personally the selfish people should not be allowed within the a thousand miles of any position of power, as power in a true democratic society should only be given to those, who have the will to equally share out the nations gains, as all have contributed to the attainment of these gains.

maybe there is something wrong with me for thinking this way

[escapee]

You might want to check out the Swiss direct democracy. I think it's the most matured democratic system in the world.

Ranked 9th in the index of Economic freedom (2008) & 4th in Economic Freedom of the World 2007
List of countries by economic freedom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

How direct democracy makes Switzerland a better place - Telegraph

Only a few places, such as Britain, the United States and New Zealand have enjoyed an unbroken parliamentary system of government for more than a century. However, there is one country that does more than any other to embody popular sovereignty within a multi-ethnic, multilingual and multi-confessional society: Switzerland.

For this to happen, members of the public need to gather 50,000 signatures (approximately one per cent of the electorate) within 100 days of the publication of a new law. In 96 out of 100 cases, no such referendum is triggered, because the parliamentary process enjoys a very high level of legitimacy. That is because the elected lawmakers know that their work will be seriously checked by the public, so do a very good job indeed.

The comprehensive system of checks and balances in Switzerland also gives the citizens the right to propose almost any constitutional amendment they wish. Such an amendment cannot, of course, violate international law or human rights. To put forward such an initiative, citizens need to gather a minimum of 100,000 signatures within 18 months.

Last but not least, the basic rules of the game of Swiss democracy are controlled by the citizens of the country, who have the last word on all constitutional changes - even those proposed by the government and parliament - as well as most international treaties.

[mark7]

the above i will agree with you on
the swiss have a democracy in the true sense of the word
but even this system can be improved upon,
as far as distribution of wealth is concearned.

[escapee]

but even this system can be improved upon, as far as distribution of wealth is concearned.

Yeah, That can be done on the tax structure, government productivity ( to provide free and efficient public service) , sensible & honest monetary policy, sustainable energy policy and etc.

[Claradonna]

There are several prominent instances of this effect - of leaders appointed by the democratic system that resonates with the 'masses', although he may not be qualified to lead,
as well as a splitting between educated classes and working classes.


In the US - Bush v Gore, Bush v Kerry
Red states and Blue states, heartland and masses choose a lower consciousness leader, v educated and urban who vote for a higher intelligence and conscious leader, but the masses majority vote wins, with destructive consequences for the country and the world

In Detroit - mayor Kwame Kilpatrick
he is considered a 'rockstar' mayor, who has charisma and appeals to working class voters, is elected twice, despite corruption in his office, now tried and convicted out of office

In Thailand- Thaksin
a wealthy tycoon who targets the uneducated and rural majority of the population, and wins a vote and holds power, despite corruption, after a coup and protests, his party wins elections three more times,
the educated and elites try to overthrow the government, now by force




These three examples, there must be many more, of the split between the educated, but minority voters, and the working class majority of voters


How can this system be fixed??

[jimbos123456]

I would want more accountability there is no way to hold anyone accountable in this system. Politicians simply can't be trusted to police themselves. I want instant runoff voting for one thing. A 4th check of balance in our system of government granting the people the ability to impeach any congressmen, senator, and president, repel any law passed by congress or any executive order by voting on it. Banning all financial contributions in all elections. Ban all electronic voting machines and switch back to a papar ballot. Ban the ability of any politician to give themselves a pay raise (that would discourage politicians from causing inflation). Allow people to be in office twice in their entire life only.

Some might say we would have a society where the rich run for office only if that were the case. I think that would promote a society where it is a dream and an honor to serve only once or twice in an entire lifetime. That way we don't have the same people in office for decades on end, and it is much harder for the two party system to remain in control. What rich person would want to waste time running if they can only do it twice, unless it is out of wanting to serve.