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.
Ok so you have to be smart to vote right, than these smart people could join together, have one of themselves run, then vote him in right away, change the rules of the gov. and than take the country over, what is stoping that?
It has very little to do with intelligence. My system is designed to prevent uniformed people from voting- not idiots. Of course, you would still need to be smart to graduate from the college. But Doctors, who are smart and have received an equal (if not more) amount of education, would not be allowed to vote. This is because while doctors may be smart, they do not necesarily keep track of all of the politcal history/current events that are necesary to chose the most able candidate.
Ok so you have to be smart to vote right, than these smart people could join together, have one of themselves run, then vote him in right away, change the rules of the gov. and than take the country over, what is stoping that?
Voters cannot run for office, people in office cannot be voters. And why would voters want to change anything when they already are getting 100,000 dollars a year for the rest of their lives?
Also: What's stopping like-minded people in our current system from banding together and getting one of their own selected? Oh wait... they already do. (I'm refering to political parties in case you missed the point).
various ways, which do not include money, to buy somebody's votes.
These methods would have to pass the FBI, not to mention the various transparency policies implemented in this system. Don't forget, voter's have to reveal how they voted and WHY they voted that way. If they don't have a defendible reason, they risk being removed from their position. If they were bribed but they still manage to think up a logical reason for their vote, then what harm is done? It's unethical, sure, but the govenment isn't harmed in a major way.
The demographic pool these voters would be drawn from would be extremely narrow.
Admission to the Voting Schools would be heavily influenced by affirmitive action. The entering pool of students would be required to represent the local demographics (based on the most current census). Loans and scholarships would be given out as needed. Graduation, however, would be based on a curve in order to control the numbers of voters, so the graduating class might not represent local population.
In order to keep this from going in circles, I have a question that relates to my system. Question: do informed people make better decisions while voting? Also, is it necesary to be informed in order to make the "best" decision?
ive always thought this. cause honestly the common man is to stupid to know what to do with the country so how do they have the right to vote for the person. i think it should be ran like how a pope is chosen.
and select group of man/women enter a room and dont come out untill a president is named, and a vice president and secretary of defense etc.
A lot has already been said about many of your points, but here is one of my initial thoughts:
impeached by the supreme court.
The Supreme Court is already busy. It takes months-years to get your case seen. Tossing these voters in the mix to get impeached would delay due process even more. Perhaps a similar, but new, court would be better?
I know this is a tad offtopic, but I remember reading a book by Scott Adams called 'The Dilbert Future' It made a little joke about intelligences relevance to democracy.
Basically, you take the hundred smartest people in the world (or the U.S) and ask them to vote on a given issue (it would be a simple 'yes/no' question), one of two things will happen. A) The people would be split, some would have voted 'yes' and some 'no'. This shows that intelligence is irrelevant to democracy. (Ouch) B) The people would all be on the same side. They would all have voted 'yes' or 'no'. This would show that intelligence is very relevant to democracy, but the fact that anyone is allowed to vote erases it's impact.
