I've been wanting to make this thread for a very long time, but hesitated because I thought it would fail quickly. I simply couldn't think of a way to keep the first post short enough so people wouldn't get bored without leaving out crucial information. So I decided to only write down *what* I think, and leave out *why* I think it. That will reveal itself if the thread survives, and if not, so be it.
Anyway.
I believe* (see bottom of post) that the United States should do away with democracy. Instead, we will adopt a system where only certain people are allow to vote. Here's how it will work:
Voting will be a profession. All voters will be government employees, and will be paid $100,000 annually. A certain amount of voters will be allowed to represent each state. This number will be determined by population.
In order to become a voter, one must recieve a "voting degree" (VD), much like doctors must have a medical degree. This degree will be awarded after one completes an ~8 year college course. Ethics, economics, military/politcal/economical history, local issues, global issues, politcal theory, philosophy etc will be taught at these colleges. A certain number will be allowed to graduate each year (in order to meet the population based quota), so graduation will be based on a curve.
Accecptance into these colleges will be highly selective, though there will be various forms of affirmitive action in order to assure that all demographic groups are represented.
Voters will vote on everything from mayorial to presidential races. They also will vote on local-national ballots. The only thing other civilians will vote on is local representives.
An FBI branch will be created as a watchdog organization to prevent corruption. All voters must reveal how they voted within 5 years, except for presidential races which will remain secret.
Professors at the voting colleges must be approved by a nation wide board, where they will recieve a Voting Professor Degree (VPD). These professors will be rotated throughout the national school system in order to prevent differences in quality between states. This will also increase awareness of local issues in other states. People with a VPD must reveal how they voted on everything, including presidential races.
Voters will be required to watch all current national congress procedings, as well as the political happenings of their own state and city. They must also be aware of international events, and important court cases.
Voters would be required to write a report explaining why they voted they way they did (within five years). This report will be made available to the public. They must also write a monthly report that summarizes the procedings of all local and national government activities, and their personal opinion of these activities. This information will also be made available to the public.
Voters will be remain voters until they die, are no longer mentally fit to vote (IE can't keep up with their duties), voluntarily disbar themsleves, or are impeached by the supreme court.
Well it ended up long anyway. All well. I would like you to find all of the problems with my plan, and explain why they are problems. I will try to answer all of your questions about this sytem within a day or so.
*I don't really believe that democracy has failed. I do believe that my plan has logical strongpoints, but that doesn't necesarily make it better than our current form of democracy.
Quite excessive. I think there should be screening, but this? A little overboard, don't you think? 8 years of college to watch politics? No, people will just become politicians, and screw voting. Voting will cease to exist.
The sample (the professional voters) would not be representative, because they are all educated and quite wealthy, therefore they would not represent the underlying population. The people may be silly some times, nonetheless they are the majority, so they have to participate in democratic procedures or they will get very angry.
Can't say I'm in favor of taking the power out of the hands of the people and putting in the hands of a select few. Even with a police of sorts in place to prevent corruption this system can still easily gives way to corruption. There is a system similar to this in the electoral college.
We could use a system like this as a buffering zone but I think at the end the people still need to have the final say.
Well, a friend of mine used to say that an ''uninformed voter'' is a pleonasm; however smart voters are, they are never fully aware of all that's going on. Plus, better schooling doesn't necessarily mean better morality, you often about radiologists killing their own children and so on...As goumas said, giving power to a few who'd have to earn it wouldn't be representative, and it is reasonable to assume that a non representative political system would be flooded by fraud, and thus not ideal for the majority. In any case, a perfect political system's an utopia.
A people are already unlikely to accept a system which does not even purport not to be biased in its representation. Educational institutions already suffer enough accusations of systematic liberal slant and demographics are such that nothing short of a coup will allow the establishment of such a system.
I think that "smart voters" are required, however the suggestion you put forth opens up a multitude of new options for politicians and corporations to push their agendas without accountability to the people.
I think that instead of selected voters we need to further education in our schools and encourage people to get the facts about their candidates policies, morals, and agendas.
I believe that what should be done instead is to send educational information to all registered voters prior to each election. This informational packet should include facts on each candidates agenda, what their politics are, what they propose to do while they are in office and how they will go about doing it.
This information is usually easily accessible prior to any election, however not only do most prospective voters not educate themselves as to the facts, but they are easily swayed by slanderous campaigns, misinformation, and redirection which occurs on every side in an election.
I believe that what should be done instead is to send educational information to all registered voters prior to each election. This informational packet should include facts on each candidates agenda, what their politics are, what they propose to do while they are in office and how they will go about doing it.
That's a pretty good idea. I think such a packet should also include the candidates record on where they stood on prior issues.
I also think we should do away with political parties. Far to often a person will vote one way just because that candidate is in "there party". Doing away with the party system helps to alleviate this bias and also helps level the playing field for other candidates who might otherwise not get in just because of the party they belong to.
I like this idea. Stats show the average American has the intelligence level of a grade 5. I believe the people are no longer fit to make such decision as who should lead their country, for the people themselves are misguided and are unsatisfied with whoever is in office.
It defeats the point of a republic, doesn't it? By your plan the general public does not choose who votes, making it less likely that the select few will not meet there needs. But if you let the public choose the voters, then it would be rather pointless not to go a step further and let them vote themselves.
Putting power in the hands of a select few will not work in America. This would be a start of limiting freedoms and a step to revelation.
The sample (the professional voters) would not be representative, because they are all educated and quite wealthy, therefore they would not represent the underlying population.
They would initially come from a representitive backround. Eventually, they would all become somewhat wealthy, yes. But this is necesary to fight corruption.
Basically all politicians are wealthy or become wealthy after getting an office. Therefore, our "representatives" are not actually representative of the public.
Furthermore, educated people are allready much more likely to vote than non educated people. In the 2008 election, people with an advanced degree were over twice as likely to vote as highschool dropouts. So our current system is not exactly representive of the public.
Corruption stuff
Why, exactly, do you think this system would be easier to corrupt than the current system? The Voters already make 100,000 a year, so it's not like they need the money. Of course, people are greedy, so that won't deter everyone.
But that's where the FBI organization comes in. If all voters must report all gifts from lobbiests (I may have forgotten to mention that) and if they must report how they voted, it shouldn't be too hard to figure out who's being bribed. Very recently, the FBI caught a few politicians in my home state who had been bribed using similiar tactics.
These same methods are used to assure that the supreme court isn't corrupt.
constitution says that all men are created equal
... Then why have a president at all? Why not just let people directly decide what's best for their country? Because people are not equally fit to lead. Some people are simply better leaders than others. Just like some people are better voters than others.
I believe that what should be done instead is to send educational information to all registered voters prior to each election. This informational packet should include facts on each candidates agenda, what their politics are, what they propose to do while they are in office and how they will go about doing it.
Problems with this: 1) Most people won't read it. 2) mailing costs = astronomical 3) This information is already available. (cspan)
My system avoids these problems by having a small number of people (less costs) be required to know all of this stuff (and more). They must also write a report to show that they read and understood what was going on, and as a way to maintain transparency. These reports could be posted in government buildings and online to keep the costs down.
A people are already unlikely to accept a system which does not even purport not to be biased in its representation
Yes. It would be impossible to implement my system. This is merely for the sake of discussion.
Aside from anything else, all I can see this doing is further entrenching political power into the hands of the priveliged few in America. In case you hadn't noticed the vast majority of people from poorer backgrounds don't go to college, and the vast majority of people in America can be aren't rich enough to afford college. The demographic pool these voters would be drawn from would be extremely narrow. Far from enhancing democracy, you would diminish it into a meaningless playground for the priveliged.
Unless of course you are advocating a full subsidy to anyone who wants to get on the course. Even in that case I'd still disagree with you. It's just not tenable in the 21st century to give power to a few, and expect the ruled over majority to simply accept this, especially on the insulting basis that they are too stupid to vote.
The less educated persons (I don't like the term non educated) do not vote, because they believe that their vote is irrelevant. You have to show them that their opinion matters and that their vote can make a difference.
The fact that these "specialists" are going to be quite wealthy does not obligatory eliminate corruption, it just slightly lowers the odds. It's in the human nature always wanting more and also there are various ways, which do not include money, to buy somebody's votes.
