zinnat wrote:The case is the same in all democracies, all over the world, whether east, west or anywhere else. And, the simple reason is that present democracies were formulated in a hurry and with a biased mind. Democracies originated in Europe as a counter to replace monarchy, thus, freedom and equality were stretched to such extremes that they start causing harm to the system instead of adding value to it.
But what to do about it? Even if it is possible to establish a method for drawing out the wise and virtuous and ushering them into leadership positions, we need to restore the people's faith in their leaders. I believe that when the people lose faith, even if it is on false grounds, their lack of faith
causes the system to fall apart--it eventually becomes a self-fulfilling professy.
zinnat wrote:gib wrote:On this point, maybe the conservatives are right.
No, conservatives were not right...
gib wrote:Maybe we shouldn't be voting for strangers who live half a continent away...
Yes, that is precisely the problem with present election system...
This is what I meant by the conservatives being right. One of the most salient points they stand for is smaller and more regionally localized government.
zinnat wrote:...and the only way to correct it to bring down elections to that local level, where voters can know about their leaders personally, not via any third party. If that happens, right people will start getting elected. Modern election campaigns are not real but doctored, just like TV serials and films, where candidates do nothing else but acting. The success of the candidates depends more on scriptwriters and directors of the show than the candidates themselves. It is now not much different than marketing a product to the customers.
Or like a football match, or like reality TV. You watch, Donald Trump will be president...
just because he was a reality TV celebrity.I believe Uccisor even concurred with this point in this very thread.
I swear, federal elections have become a popularity contest in the US, and voters make their decisions with the mentality of teenagers.
I also think the US government has turned due process into a social science experiment. They are currently testing the population to see what they can get away with. They found that Schwarzenegger can win in California, and with Trump they're testing the theory that celebrity-hood wins more votes than wisdom, virtue, or competency.
zinnat wrote:Chanakya, the greatest political guru that ever happened in India, centuries ago said that if you want to judge the intent of any person, you just have to watch how he behaves in private with those over whom he has some control like subordinates, juniors, employees, servants etc. But, you cannot judge these things from present election campaigns.
Ah, so that's where the Harry Potter quote came from:
"If you want to know what a man's like, take a look at how he treats his inferiors, not his equals."
- Sirius Black
zinnat wrote:Voters should not be asked to vote to any candidate beyond a certain distance. It is matter of debate but my personal opinion is that 1000 voters should be asked to choose one person from their locality. That benchmark is lower enough to have enough in person knowledge about their leader. That means that there will be 1000 leaders to on one million voters, and as those voters are sorted ones, thus my guess is that 1000 leaders would cover at least 10 million citizens. Going by the present US population of around 325 million, there will be approximately 32,000 elected local leaders all over US.
Yes, now speaking of conservatives, and the original intent of the Constitution, they understood that given this many local communities, or "states", there had to be some kind of centralized government with minimal power whose sole function was simply to keep all the states from going to war with each other. The greatest fear at the time of America's birth was that the union of all states would degenerate into war, just as it had in Europe, at the first opportunity. They didn't want to just expand Europe. They wanted a new system, a system that
wasn't like Europe, a confederation that was able to maintain harmony amongst the states in a way that Europe never could. The best they could think of was to establish a glorified "committee" made from representative from all the states whose purpose was to make decisions for the states when the states couldn't amongst themselves.
It's not clear, at least to me, whether they predicted the monolithic monster this mere committee would one day become, a monster that can now drag down the entire Earth with its own downfall.
zinnat wrote:Now, from here on, things can be handled in either in one step or two steps. These elected members can choose the President and other administrators directly, but, if it becomes too complicated because of huge number of elected members, these members can choose the second layer of congress from within themselves, something to the tune of one thousand to control the overall governing system.
Either way, one must be careful. A government 1000 strong will need a leader amongst its own ranks, and then you're adding layers upon layers of government in a hierarchical structure. One man to rule over 32,000 thousand local leaders may not be all that worse than several layers of leadership (in the form of whole governments) in a colossal hierarchical structure.
Rome fell because it became too big. America may be different in its structure and its methods, both presently and in the past, but I can't think of a single system that can maintain a population of 325 million and span a continent one and a half thousand miles wide without eventually crumbling. Layers upon layers of bureaucracy makes for a deck of cards. One man to rule over 325 million makes for a lone pillar holding up an unsustainable weight. I see no other method than these two.
(This makes me think: is the reason for the fall of great empires--republics or otherwise--simply unmanageable size? Could the secret to maintaining a republic be to live within a moderate size? What if America were actually four or five smaller confederations? Would the dangers of war breaking out between them still be as great?)
zinnat wrote:If their election as a leader is not good enough motivation for any person, he cannot be motivated in any other way, thus not fit for the job just because of not having right intent. He is either interest in himself only, lethargic or lacks courage to take up the responsibility. All intelligence and knowledge is useless without right intent. So, if any elected leader do not want to be one, he will not be forced and next most getter will be elected in his place.
Ok, so you must mean people who
are motivated to take on the yolk of leadership but are not hungry for power. They therefore don't compete for it. They don't go to any ruthless end to take it.
The problem, therefore, if I understand you correctly, is that in allow our leaders to compete for and take power themselves, we are inviting the ruthless and the power-crazed to jump to the top of the food chain. The kind of person we want in power are those that are fully qualified, of course, but require others to usher them into power. That, if I understand correctly, is a method for filtering out all the maniacal mad-men.
zinnat wrote:Again, there will be no such thing in my proposed system which will be similar to present election system, especially campaigning. I very specifically mentioned that there would no political parties, no election campaigning, no TV debates. Yes, people and elected members also are free to believe in any ideology they like. And, the debates are reserved for the congress sessions will be telecasted live, so general voters and public can see what they are concluding and how.
As far as this issue of election mode is concerned, the congress and government will remain in election mode always, not because they have to fight elections, but because they have to perform all the time just to be at their posts, forget about reelection.
Secondly, my proposed election system may vote positively (elect local leaders) after some fix time intervals, but negative voting system will be open for the sorted voters 24/7. All eligible grassroot voters would have an online account saved with password with main election server. And, they can login and vote negatively anytime both for their local elected representative and also for anyone in the executive government, including president or PM. And, as soon as negative votes cross 50% even for a fraction of a second, targeted elected person would have to step down, no matter whoever it would be, though voters will have the right to take back their negative vote anytime also, Thus, all elected members of the congress and nominated government executives by that congress have to on their toes and perform.
Hmm... the only problem I can see with this system is that, on occasion, there may be long drawn out periods where the people are indecisive about who they want as their leader. Suppose you had two candidates, and the population was more or less split 50/50 on who should win. Suppose one candidate won by a margin of 51%. It wouldn't be that surprising that within the next week or so, the winner's ratings drop to 49%, thus ushering in his opponent. Then a couple days later, his ratings rise again to 52%. Then again, after a few days, to 48%. You can see how this could drag on for months. In this kind of situation, government would be stifled. It wouldn't happen all the time, of course, but when it does, it would be like a traffic jam where nothing gets done.
zinnat wrote:I think it is merely new or you may call it somewhat strange but i do not think it is much complicated to understand. And, once you understand it, the intention behind it and what can be achieved by this, its acceptance would not be that much difficult.
Well, in order to convince people, you will need a lot more than just understanding. You will need to demonstrate real world examples of its success. This is, by far, the most powerful way to convince people (which is why science is so successful).
zinnat wrote:You are assuming rightly. But, most of these issues would not trouble much if merely 1000 voters would be choosing one member.
Secondly, my number of sorted voters would not be that much less as you are assuming. All citizens crossing 45 (open for debate) would become automatically eligible for voting, irrespective of their education level. All post graduates. or graduated at least would be eligible for voting. Besides this, there would a voting eligibility exam held in every six months. Anyone else can attempt it irrespective of his age and education. If if clears it, he would also become a voter.
So, my guess it that one out of every ten citizens would become a voter. The scrutiny is not that high as you are thinking. Having said that, yes, the faith of the people in having some faith in others has to restored to some extent, which is decreasing constantly since long. I think that choosing leaders from personally known local persons may restore the faith of citizens in politics and politicians.
With 1000 voters to every leader, this would certainly go a long ways to satisfying the two essentials that I mentioned--assurance that the voters are thinking on behalf of the population at large, and that the elected leadership is able to maintain the people's happiness and wellbeing--and perhaps there are other essentials that I'm not thinking of at the moment--but I'm just saying: these
are essentials, and the system wouldn't work unless they are met (unless the system we're aiming for is a repressive dictatorship, but no one wants that).
zinnat wrote:I tried to have a general idea of the spread of US population, and it came out that every age year covers roughly 1.25% of us population. I am not sure what is present voting age limit in US, but if that is 18, it means that about 22.5% of US citizens are not voters now. If we calculate it for 21 years, this figure would be 26.25%. The official figure was 27% in 2009, which confirms that my ratio is almost on the target.
Are you taking into consideration that there is usually more younger people in society than older people? This assumes that there is, on average, more than two children for every set of parents.
zinnat wrote:I realized that I am still making a mistake in calculation. There must be some overlapping in above 45 citizens and post graduates and it would be wrong to add both figures. Having said that, I still feel that one can take 50% as an eligible voters.
I think you're going to continue making calculation mistakes so long as you go purely on speculation. There are just too many variables determining who will be eligible to vote and who won't, and these variables will continually occur to you so long as you keep thinking about it.
But I think your point is made: the portion of the population who are eligible to vote (and do vote) will be significant enough to have the intended effect.
Oh God.