Might we consider an alternative political system called epistocracy.
I kinda like this idea...seems to fix some of the problems with democracies.
"Epistocracies retain the same institutions as representative democracies, including imposing liberal constitutional limits on power, bills of rights, checks and balances, elected representatives and judicial review. But while democracies give every citizen an equal right to vote, epistocracies apportion political power, by law, according to knowledge or competence."
"Epistocracies retain the same institutions as representative democracies, including imposing liberal constitutional limits on power, bills of rights, checks and balances, elected representatives and judicial review. But while democracies give every citizen an equal right to vote, epistocracies apportion political power, by law, according to knowledge or competence."
Being a hard ass, I would of just given them my BOW FINGER.
But even then, I'm sure, at some point, that dormant retarded gene will creep up somewhere and we'll be traveling the cycle of civilizations all over again.
I think the pres should only be 2 years with option of only one re-election based on defined performance criteria. This way...they can't do that much damage...we always have the recall...which is hard to get done...maybe it should be easier...especially if the electorate is Pre-Qualified.
In the original days of the United States, Town Hall meetings were the social/political event where everyone gathered to discuss the welfare and organization of their areas. Those there actively participated in government: they knew the issues and vigorously debated them and as a result the People knew what they were doing. Nowadays, a Town Hall meeting is just a pulpit for politicians to come and politely listen to their constituents before going back to Washington and consulting with their lobbyists.
The new one has a computer with all sorts of sensors designed to make sure that if the cycle completes, it will have definitely cleaned the clothes without presenting any hazard to the people around it. In order to design this washer, one would need far more expertise in many areas to make the proper tradeoffs during the engineering and production process.
Although this example doesnt translate to town hall decisions automatically, I do think that things today are more complicated and have grown past the knowledge and education of most of the people
Here's a rather pointed example to consider. Around 800 AD began the rise of the modern (yes, that is tongue-in-cheek) Islamic state. They began to expand into and take over the Middle East. The city-state of Vienna, seeing this aggressive expansion and after fighting off an invasion fleet, saw that either they had to take the battle to Islam in their own lands or they would constantly be watching their coastlines. So they decided to invade the Holy Land. In order to get support, they presented the problem to the Pope so as to not only re-categorize the issue as a religious problem (which it was) but to get the powers-that-be (at the time) to not only sanction the action, but actively recruit for it. And so began the Crusades which lasted for the better part of 400 years, but had the direct effect of focusing the warfare in the Middle East so the rest of the world could go about its business.
Now, a millenium later, we have nearly the exact same scenario playing out: an aggressive military expansion of Islam actively seeking to take over and expand to other parts of the world. Their ideology hasn't changed, nor have their tactics. It's just that 1000 years ago, Muslims were prevented from even entering many Western nations. Yes, now they have guns and pressure cookers instead of swords, but what else has really changed other than the tools?
Maybe we should redefine "Educated" also.
I think it describes a large majority of people now considering themselves to be educated and intellectual. I wouldn't trust them to make change at McDonalds.
And yes I know the two skill are not the same.
Nonsense. Any attempt to rationalize democracy is going to lead to the same result. Tyranny of the majority. The only answer is Jefferson's. A revolution each generation.
Should this ever occur it will most likely be on a planet of another star system without the help of any damn corrupt earthbound government.
Oh, they'd try to come horning in, though.
I bought its only wonderful season and its follow-up loose-end tying great movie, Serenity, from Amazon.
It's about space smugglers whose sky is free.
When our country was formed, only landholders, those invested voted.
But the idea of having knowledge of the issues and our constitution is a good idea. Got to stop the ignorant entitled mob from voting for more stuff...I can not afford Their stuff.
So I'd hate for owners (not necessarily CEOs) of banks and mortgage companies to be the majority of voters.
Hmm, not to mention shareholders.
Imagine voting for either Shillary, Trumpery or Goofy Gary on a shareholder proxy.
The system that will work is if the federal government is restricted to very few things like national defense, AND there is s stipulation in the constitution that forbids it from taking from one and giving to another- PERIOD. That way there is no "ruling party". Government workers from top down would simply be administrators of the limited functions of government. No Obamas, no Clintons, only managers who have proven themselves to be good at managing efficiently and inexpensively.
Very enlightening and appreciative of the work Adams and our forefathers put into this endeavor.
"Because it works satisfactorily."
Like how a guy going through Infantry training refused to be rolled out for a crippling injury, and ended up becoming the cook.