OK, I'm going to try an experiment here. I want us to come up with the most unusual political/governmental ideas we can, and then debate the pros and cons. I'm talking whacked stuff, here. You don't have to advocate an idea to post it. My example:
"Many politicans run for office for personal gain. We could eliminate this problem by executing all politicians when their terms have expired."
On the plus-side, it does exactly what it says it does. The only people who run will be the ones that actually believe in what they're doing. Of course, they could just as easily be suicidal, with all that entails. "Why NOT push the button? I'm dead in four years anyway..."
It can be somewhat more pedestrian, if you like, but preferably something that hasn't been actually implemented before.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Hmmm, some clarification might be needed, are we talking devil's advocate stuff here? Merely radical ideas, but still in one's normal politcal stance? Or just plain weird stuff?
Oh well, as a guess. Lets see, a random assortment.
"Government should be run by the people, for the people. Therefore, politicans should be randomly picked from the general population and returned to their old professions when their term is complete. While on their leadership sabbatical, leaders are paid their old wages."
"People should be governed by the best and brightest. Government is to be a meritocracy, positions determined by a battery of standardised tests and accreditations, in the appropriate fields. (i.e. All politicans should have IQs in the upper 5%, the Minister of Health should have the highest MCAT score, the Minister of Education has a SAT score of 1600, the Minister of Transportation must be an accredited engineer, the Minister of Foreign Affairs must have an honours degree in both history and geography, etc.)"
"Governments should be run as businesses, based on the theory that capitalism and competition leads to the optimal solution. To correct for geographical differences, "gov-panies" will be overlapping. This means that chose their own government to invest their own land, taxes, etc. in. Dividends, stock payouts, etc. will all be converted to the new system."
"Governments are run most efficiently during a war. In addition, technology and science advance the most during a war. Therefore, governments should be in an eternal state of war with a randomly picked partner country. Weapons of mass destruction that affect natural resources however will not be allowed. The rules will be enforced from the ISS, armed with nuclear weapons, and run by a party with no current military engagements. (i.e. Sweden, Iceland, Belgium, etc.)"
I think that covers a few of the bases Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Hmmm, this is amusing:
"Studies have shown that the best and brightest in society tend to have children late in life, and less children. This is due to higher education, pursuit of career, etc. In addition, it is a known fact that certain diseases are growing in severity in certain population groups that tend to segegrate (i.e. East European Jews and Tay-Sachs, the suspected link between Engineering/CS and autism) These two facts combined with genetic identification of genes and diseases, means that governments must play a greater role in determining ideal matches.
To avoid an outcry of "eugenics", this policy does not determine who mates, but instead who mates with whom. (For the two previous examples, a East European Jew might be paired with a Japanese atheist. An Engineering/CS grad would be paired with a brainless extrovert with no academic inclinations, etc.)"
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
For Omega's 1st idea
quote: "Many politicans run for office for personal gain. We could eliminate this problem by executing all politicians when their terms have expired."
Analysis: As Omega pointed out, this would effectively eliminate the personal gain motive for the positions involved. However, it is completely unfeasible to run all levels of government in this fashion (i.e. mayors, councilors, MPPs, MPs, Prime Ministers, etc.) A population drain of (rough estimate) 1000 every term would quickly eliminate all skilled candiates. Leaving behind suicidal or unstable candidates. ("If I'm going down, I'm taking you all down with me.") However, leaving a hybrid system with only executions for the highest levels would lead to a puppet figurehead. A executable Prime Minister would be effectively controlled by a non-executable Cabinet. Lastly, this does not really add any "good" filters to the process. You've partially eliminated personal gain as a qualification, but added nothing as an incentive, aside from still leaving the power to grant contracts and monentary favours to friends and family.
Conclusion: Unfeasible in its entirety, unworkable if only implemented in part. No major benefits.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
Okay:
"Expand the vote by giving successful people extra votes, of two types.
People who attain higher levels of education accrue more votes. These votes are called "Immortal" votes, because, like education, they can never be taken away (barring insanity or mental infirmity).
People who reach certain benchmarks of wealth accrue "Mortal" votes, because they can be lost if the person's funds decrease."
(See Mark Twain's "The Curious Republic of Gondour" for more information.)
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I like the idea of random government service...
All people that would be eligable voters are in the pool. All seats would be divided by county/parish, according to population. Straws, or something, would be drawn to fill the local positions, with the non-selected being taken to the next level, etc...
A voters registration test, to determine, to the best ability as can, the persons mental stability, to be taken during the week prior to taking office.
Age restrictions would apply, an 18 year old would be eliminated before the selections of higher offices. Maturity, while not all knowing and full of wisdom, does seem to be needed...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I'm rather liking this random officials idea myself. You just keep a list of people who are eligable to do the job, for example: all people above the age of 30 who have at least a B.S/B.A or equivalent, have no criminal record past a certain point, are mentally sound, and have scored a certain level on some standardized test.
It'd be more like the draft or jury duty than anything. You take the corruption out of politics, because you'd have eliminated politics all together! The leaders would actually have more limited rights than the rest of us, such as having their finances scrutinized. They could get paid what they got paid in their previous employment, within a certain range (say, no less than the average national income, and no more than triple it?). Of course, you'd have the question of what the employer is supposed to do while the employee is off making laws, but that seems like a minor problem. It'd certainly increase the industry for long-term temp staffers, in all positions...
Unless anyone has any objections, it looks workable. As for the governmental structure... what's say three houses? Assuming a country layed out like the US, you could have one house chosen with an even number of people from each state (ala the Senate), one house chosen based on the population of each state (ala the House), and a THIRD house of a certain number of people chosen from the population as a whole, totally at random.
Of course, you still have to have an executive branch of some kind, and a judiciary, neither of which I would advocate chosing at random. Any suggestions there?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Why three houses though? An Upper and a Lower House makes sense, but a third?
I've often thought that no-one who seeks any sort of political power shouldn't be allowed it. That actually ties in quite neatly with this random-appointment idea. I did toy with the thought that anyone who'd ever shown some sort of leadership ability, or rather desire to lead, should be exempot, but I don't think it'd work. If the process was truly random, such people might never get a chance at true power anyway.
quote:"Governments are run most efficiently during a war. . ."
Wouldn't it be just better to analyse what forces bring about such efficiency? And if they could be applied without the actual need to go to war? Because all I see in past examples are patriotism (nothing wrong with that in itself, but when it's excessive to the point of jingoism and bigotry), increased internal security, and less dissension (of any kind).
I like the idea of extra voting credits, but I'm wary of anything that starts to institutionalise the division between "us" and "them." People in higher education could start to control who has access to higher education, maing sure only who they see as the right sort get elevated. It's already happening at Oxford & Cambridge.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Because all I see in past examples are patriotism (nothing wrong with that in itself, but when it's excessive to the point of jingoism and bigotry), increased internal security, and less dissension (of any kind).
Yeah, but all THAT happens because you have an external threat that everyone sees as the greater worry than any relatively petty differences. Thus the war. Remember [u]1984[/u]? Three countries, constantly at war because it gave the people an external threat to be worried about.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Funny you should mention 1984. That was exactly what I was thinking about when I started off that paragraph. I remember being particularly amused by a section in the book when the enemy nation is switched (seemingly at random), and everyone acts as though it always was that way. I'd have to agree with Omega though, I can't really think of anyway to simulate that lack of dissent and increase in efficiency without an actual war. In any case, the factors that make a nation efficient during a war are probably factors we wouldn't be happy living with.
Before we get carried away with this random government service idea, remember that this still doesn't eliminate bias. While we eliminate politics and politicians for the sake of power/money, candidates will still be biased in favour of whatever profession/social group they came from.
Also, even with the filtering Omega proposed, you would still have a tendency to elect people that have no expertise in governing whatever area they end up in. (i.e. randomly selecting a veternarian to run a Ministry of Defence) Thats another problem that would have to be dealt with.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
I remember being particularly amused by a section in the book when the enemy nation is switched (seemingly at random), and everyone acts as though it always was that way.
Oceania is at war with Eurasia. Oceania has ALWAYS been at war with Eurasia.
While we eliminate politics and politicians for the sake of power/money, candidates will still be biased in favour of whatever profession/social group they came from.
Well, sure, but there's not much we can do about that.
Also, even with the filtering Omega proposed, you would still have a tendency to elect people that have no expertise in governing whatever area they end up in. (i.e. randomly selecting a veternarian to run a Ministry of Defence) Thats another problem that would have to be dealt with.
Well, I'm not suggesting that ALL government officials be selected at random, especially not the ones that require some sort of specialization or expertise. But the legislature doesn't need any of that. Just a bit of intelligence and information.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Common sense is important also.... I've known some really bright people that lacked common sense.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I know this guy named Landru who has a great idea...
Posted by AndrewR (Member # 44) on :
I've also heard of Vaal having some ideas. Something about computer. But that might be in the same vein as Landru. Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Because all I see in past examples are patriotism (nothing wrong with that in itself, but when it's excessive to the point of jingoism and bigotry), increased internal security, and less dissension (of any kind).
Yeah, but all THAT happens because you have an external threat that everyone sees as the greater worry than any relatively petty differences. Thus the war. Remember [u]1984[/u]? Three countries, constantly at war because it gave the people an external threat to be worried about.
All this is the downside of beiong at war (in additon to all that, you know, death, maiming and property damage stuff). Do you want all that just for the sake of increased efficiency? That's why I think that instead one should look at what makes things more efficient in wartime.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
The greater sense of urgency, the streamlining of most things.... Cut down on he 'red' tape, reprimand or terminate those that end up going on power trips..
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
As I noted before, the fact that people are willing to forgo civil liberties and actually democratically discussing how things should be done...in favour of getting stuff done quickly, because its "worth it."
But how do you simulate that without a war? And more importantly, would you want to?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
OK, new approach to the whole random selection thing. Say there are two senators from each state. Pick TEN random people from the pool, and have them answer an extensive series of questions about their positions and beliefs. The people then place those ten in order from most to least preferable, and the top two have to serve.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
More paperwork, dang it, I'll never get home in time for dinner....
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Preferable to whom?
And even then, it wouldn't work: candidates could undergo rigorous training by people behind the scenes on what answers to give, in order to ensure that those special interests get someone sympathetic to themselves in.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
No warning testing, 1 hour notice....
Before hand you have to ban pro-this and pro-that advertising, as to have no undue influence...
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Preferable to whom?
Well, since the PEOPLE are the ones putting them in order according to preferance...
Before hand you have to ban pro-this and pro-that advertising, as to have no undue influence...
Now I wouldn't see anything wrong with advertizing for ideas. So long as it's advertizing for IDEAS, not the people who support them.
Even better: how 'bout we select our ten people, have them take the tests, and then have people vote based on their opinions on the issues? Then the two who best match those opinions are selected. No names released to the public at all.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Why bother to have people vote at all? Do it with computers, match candidate opinions up with those of the public, taken by poll and collated electronically.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Hmm... this randomness thing, while still attractive, is bugging me to some degree. This idea of placing cantidates in order of preference, however, is looking more and more cool. Say we eliminate the electoral college, and have all elections decided based on which cantidate got the most "points". It'd kill the two-party system, and make other cantidates far more viable. I know it'd make ME vote for cantidates that I actually agree with, instead of ones that I simply see as the lesser evil. Any objections?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Yeah, you seem to be moving further and further away from randomness, and are just adding complexity and politics to a simple system.....mostly in an effort to eliminate problems specific to the current US system. I have a feeling you'd be happier working from a different starting point.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"I know it'd make ME vote for cantidates that I actually agree with, instead of ones that I simply see as the lesser evil."
So you're saying that it takes action by someone else to make you start thinking on your own?
Posted by Free ThoughtCrime America (Member # 480) on :
"Only Service guarantees Citizenship."
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
We're now seeing the ultimate problem with all political hypothesizing: people always favour the idea that's going to put them on top. In the UK the Liberal Democrats (even in some of their previous incarnations) favoured proportional representation because it would lead to election results more fairly representing the actual voting of the population as a whole. The fact that it would have brought them pretty close to being the number 2 party, and hence becoming Her Majesty's Opposition, was purely coincidental. Now, since 1997, they've made it to within a smidgeon of being in Opposition anyway, and all of a sudden no-one's talking PR anymore.
Anyone who talks about order of preference is working under the assumption that their preference will be right at the top of the list. That there's some great underswell of people just like them who will finally get their voice heard.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Her Majesty's Opposition"? You people actually say things like that?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
So you're saying that it takes action by someone else to make you start thinking on your own?
And you get this from what I said how?
just adding complexity and politics to a simple system.....mostly in an effort to eliminate problems specific to the current US system.
If complexity makes a simple system better, well, then bring on the complexity! "Make things as simple as possible. But no simpler."
But how am I adding politics? And how are these problems specific to our system? The same problems exist in all democracies. They just "solve" them by suppressing the advertizing and such, even though this still leaves the problem of the people only having two real choices. I'm looking for a solution that doesn't violate my basic principles, AND solves the real problem.
But if you have a better basic system, please, do tell.
Anyone who talks about order of preference is working under the assumption that their preference will be right at the top of the list. That there's some great underswell of people just like them who will finally get their voice heard.
That's rather cynical. It's also rather true. Yeah, a lot of people like me will get their full opinions finally heard: people who vote! This has nothing to do with my ideological leanings, this is about my pragmatic leanings. I'm looking for a system that works better than what we have, where peoples' opinions actually count for something, and I think that this is it.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"And you get this from what I said how?"
What you said seemed to imply that, until somebody reforms the electoral process, you'll vote for "the lesser evil" rather than the person you actually want to vote for. This seems to me to match the common mindset of "well, I'm a [Republican | Democrat] so I'm going to have to vote for 'my party's' candidate, rather than bothering to see what the other people think".
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
quote:We're now seeing the ultimate problem with all political hypothesizing: people always favour the idea that's going to put them on top.
Go back and have a look at Gondour again. How does it put "my side" on top?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Well, if you can keep the armies of Gondor tied up, we'll be able to march right through the Gap of Rohan and have unfettered access to the sea.
Oh.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Down by the sea.....
---------- This vote for sale..... ----------
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
quote:That's rather cynical.
Why thank you. 8)
I'd also like to point out I wasn't getting at Meychops or his ideologies (first time for everything), but trying to make a general point.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN: "Her Majesty's Opposition"? You people actually say things like that?
Actually, it's Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition . And what's wrong with saying things like that?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I dunno about the first one, but Loyal Opposition is a little strange....
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Well, it basically means "we're opposed to the lot who're in power at the moment, but since they're technically representing the Queen, it's nothing personal, Ma'am."
And no, generally we just call them the Opposition. But to avoid misunderstanding (some idiot asking "Like, in opposition to what, dude?") I thought I'd use the full title. Whether being misunderstood is better or worse than being Nixpicked, I'm not really sure. . . 8)
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Okay, I grasp the concept...
misunderstod is worse....
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Why would you go through the gap of Rohan to get to the sea?
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Uh, I dunno. I'm not really a fan. I just took a quick look at the map. I mean, how else do you get from Mordor into the western lands but through there?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
I'd try the train.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I'd rather fly... like an eagle...
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Because you've got faith of the heart?
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
No, because he's got wings. Where have YOU been?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Always...
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Oh, right, you've been in "always" ... silly me ...
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
We've known you were silly for a long, long time now.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
It was an obscure joke, actually.
Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :
That wasn't obscure, it was opaque.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Ah for the days of Thorondor.
PS: If the armies of Gondor were tied up, I'd head for Dol Amroth, on the coast.
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Actually, Kate - who's never read the books - just heard what the second film was called, and said "The Two Towers - are they serious?" Funny, that, it had never occurred to me before, either. . .
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
There was a petition a while back asking them to change such an obviously tasteless name...
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Flying... Two Towers.... by the sea.....
mmmmmmm
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
No, there was a joke petition. Not that every online petition isn't a joke.
Posted by E. Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Oh yes, the name's so obviously tasteless that people seem to have forgotten TTT was published in... 1954!! Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
Wait until the loonies hear that The Return of the King doesn't involve the Second Coming. . . 8)
(edit, since Cartman posted the same time as me)
Maybe Charles should put the sarcasm detector back in!
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
maybe they should name it potential Spoilers $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ "they fucked up the plot and killed off saruman at the end of the movie. fucking bastards. oh, wait. that's us. shit." that of course is assuming that the rumors of saruman dying at the end of TTT is true.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Couldn't you just, I don't know, READ THE FUCKING BOOK to find out if the "rumors" are true?
I mean, HONESTFUCKINGLEY!
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
the problem with that is that they don't always match...
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
I don't think you get the point of his insane shut-in rant, Snay.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Anecdote related to the preceding discussion: Someone at the library a while back was looking for Tolkien's "The Twin Towers". Since I was so accustomed to hearing that phrase at the time, and since I knew what she was talking about, I didn't even realize what she'd said until she corrected herself.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
REALLY!!?!?! Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Too often such pivotal moments in history go unrecorded. Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
That's because history seems to prefer to focus its attention on momental pivots, like Sol's. 8)
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snay: Couldn't you just, I don't know, READ THE FUCKING BOOK to find out if the "rumors" are true?
I mean, HONESTFUCKINGLEY!
ok senor stupid, the rumors aren't whether the book fucked it up but whether the FUCKING GODDAMN MOVIE DID YOU STUPID FUCKING ASSHOLE GO HAVE SEX WITH YOUR GODDAMN JEEP AND SHUT THE FUCK UP YOU GOD DAMN RE-RE!!!!!. i've read the series many times, and i'm fairly sure that at no point in the books do they kill of a character that doesn't die until a later point in the book. maybe if you'd read my fucking post you would have seen that i said "movie", but you were probably too busy sticking legos up your anus, you fucking trolloc. quit humping that fucking vibrating harry potter broom toy too, it'll make hair grow on your palms, not that i care you fucking troglodyte bum raping fuck. the proceeding was a public service announcement.
Posted by Solommagnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
You should go outside more often.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Solommagnus de Pym: You should go outside more often.
i hates the yellowface! it burnses, it does, it burnses!
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Edipis,
You need anger management classes. Or a body riddled with 9mm rounds. I'll let you know what I decide.
*Click*
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
you come with a 9, i'll come with a tank. we'll see who wins, broom fucker.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Children, children...
Now, now, what has gotten in to you????
Could it be...
SATAN?????
Ep, that wasn't completly different, as per the topic, as Jeff has been assaulted like that before... I mean verbally.... I am not sure, nor do I want to know, about an broom sex....
Posted by Solommagnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
quote:Could it be...
SATAN?????
Superb.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: I am not sure, nor do I want to know, about an broom sex....
i'm guessing that you haven't seen this picture of snay. Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
I knew I didn't want to follow that link, but curiosity did kill.....
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
I'm awestruck. Best insulting rant ever. 8)
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Edepis,
Please bend over so I can fuck you up the ass with a rotting oak tree trunk. Thank you so much.
--Jeff
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: I'm awestruck. Best insulting rant ever. 8)
thank you Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
quote:Originally posted by Snay: Edepis,
Please bend over so I can fuck you up the ass with a rotting oak tree trunk. Thank you so much.
--Jeff
pathetic.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
So is that a "no"?
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
indeed.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
How about a porcupine?
Posted by Solommagnus de Pym (Member # 239) on :
We're at the Richard Gere stage of pathetic comebacks already?
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
i didn't know you taken such a shine to me, snay. i mean, you really really seem to want to fuck me. maybe i should go down the street and yell at women like i yelled at you.
Posted by EdipisReks (Member # 510) on :
why are you sad that you are flying, Magnus? most people would love to be able to fly.
Posted by Snay (Member # 411) on :
Hey, Edepis: you do know you can reply to more then one person in the same post ... right?
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Just trying to catch up to you on # of posts....
So, Jeff, how's the new job????
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
Now you two kiss and make up. Anway enough of the oh-so-amusing mantrain analogies. Thread locked.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
. And what's wrong with saying things like that?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)