OK I've been discussing this with anyone that will listen for a few years - it's basically my excuse for not voting which I know will annoy a few people! So we all know that people are flawed and power corrupts; so why vote for them? Wouldn't it be great if the political process was transparent like open-source software development? Give people the oportunity to vote for processes and procedures that manage our countries. The only argument I've heard against this idea is that there are a lot of people that don't have the cognitive ability to decide upon complex issues like the economy. My answer to this would be that there would have to be a normalization process which filters the votes - most people would agree with this so it could be voted for too. So how would you put together a government? Would you need one? Any positions required would be filled academic experts on an altruistic basis - you can't get paid for the role and all your accounts/correspondence would be open to the public. Any thoughts?
People should get votes equal to the amount of taxes they paid during the previous fiscal year. Why should someone who is getting welfare checks for 52 weeks have any say in who is elected.
It doesn't annoy me. In my opinion, if you don't vote, you don't count and don't have any reason to discuss politics. No, it wouldn't be great. Unless you live in a country with 10 people, a direct democracy won't work. Do you have any idea how many decisions are made daily in the broad scope that is government? I'm guessing not. In a representative democracy, you choose people to represent you and vote on your behalf. It's the best way to run a democratic state that has hundreds of millions of people. That's been done in our country (USA) already. It worked great [sarcasm]. African-American citizens would come to vote and they would get asked questions to see how smart they were. Their questions were 100x harder than those posed to white citizens. The result was white people getting to vote. They were the majority and approved of the polling question & tax process. Oh, let's not forget all the people with mental disabilities that you will be disenfranchising in the your new "government." Who would decide the questions to be asked? How hard could they be? For instance, I could ask you stuff that you couldn't answer. You would then be disenfranchised. Is this what you are after? How else could you decide who's allowed to vote? Education level? Is that really wise? If you graduated college with say a 2.6 GPA and a degree in motorcycle maintenance, should you get to vote? What about the guy that graduated with close to a 4.0 and has a Political Science degree? If they can both vote, then there is inequality in the voting process.
I'd rather we got rid of the 17th amendment and go back to states chosing their senators based upon their own method. The senators would likely be less partisan and more accountable. Our courts system would likely be more objective and less agenda driven (not that it is that bad). --------------------------------------------------------------------- We might have something similiar to what you're talking about, but not in the manner you're portraying.
*yawn* While my post was intended to be sarcastic, your reply is pretty typical and predictable. I'm not even sure if you know what I was talking about. Your "rich stay rich, poor stay poor" retort is silly, yo.
I'm not sure the 17th is the problem. I think before that, senators were selected by state legistlatures correct? I'd much rather have a direct choice in the senator than be an afterthought. 40 (or whatever your state's number of legistlators is) people choosing someone who serves for 6 years doesn't seem too wise to me. The primary process is probably more to blame. You get 2 parties pushing their candidates out. Obviously, on either side, the most radical candidate is going to win from each side. Seems the primary system is the problem. I'd much rather have a true open primary - all candidates on all ballots. Top 2 vote getters go to the general election - party be damned. That'd be interesting.
It was up to the state's constitution,... so they weren't all the same. The thing I like about it was that Senators could be booted if the states laws found it was within their authority ie the people could change their senator if they disliked them. More authority of the people....more federalism. It wasn't perfect in ways, but it was a lot better than now.
You can only get 29-30% of people to pay attention during a presidential election, much less a midterm. Imagine how difficult (re impossible) it'd be to get them to pay attention on an odd numbered year. It'd be pointless. I'd be curious to know how many senators were ever changed because of the old system? And why would states (3/4 of them at least) give up the right and ratify the amendment?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seventeenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution I read through this...fairly good history of what happened. It has some problems, but I believe it's fundamentally better. I think states should been required to have decesive measure on appointing Senators ie you are required to have to seat filled by a certain time, and your method must do such. Wiki should answer your questions.
Seems like each has its problems. I read the anti-repealing piece and it was saying that several senators went in through bribing the legistlature. Not really dis-similar to getting wads of cash from special interests in their war chests, but oh well. I do like the idea of states being able to recall a senator, though. I'd be up for that one. It'd definitely make them more accountable to their states, which right now, they are not.
Wow, I don't know if I'd be able to vote because I don't understand a lot of your replies! Interesting to see how the American system differs from the UK (where I'm from). I think the UK could use a lot of ideas from your presidential system - in the UK votes aren't counted proportionally as some 'seats' are worth more than others. I think that more (and this is just a guess) that Americans have a better understanding of how their political system works than most people do in the UK. I still think that voting for people is flawed - is there an alternative? How would you make those in power more accountable? How would you make their decisions more transparent? As for the argument about me not being allowed to discuss politics because I don't vote, I think you're probably right! I've heard one good argument if you can't find someone with whom you trust with your vote you should stand yourself. Do you think anyone would vote for me?
It depends what you mean by "political system." Most Americans don't have a clue. The limit of general understanding is that a person votes, votes are counted, person wins. Take our Constitution. What % of the American population do you think can tell you, without looking it up on the Internet/book/notes, what amendments the Bill of Rights contains? No, I don't mean "the first 10." That's just one example. Now, are the UK citizens any bettor or worse? Perhaps you can answer this. I do know that citizens in Germany are far more involved in the political process than we are, but that's because they don't have a first past the post system like us. Now, you're thinking. Get out there and get involved. Start out with the lower levels (like city council and so forth in our country). Get a taste and work your way up.
Hi Marketjunction, Interesting and motivating point: We have had instances recently where people have been getting votes on single specific issues which is promising. Isn't the bill of rights a huge set of documents or am I thinking of your constitution? I hope your fellow Americans know more than me! Do you think that we need a constitution? We don't officially have free speech in this country - it's something mooted by Michael Moore in 'Stupid White Men' - I think he may have a point (his book was 'censored' for UK release!). ...I'd better be careful or our MI5 will be opening a file on me