posted
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"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.)"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"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.)
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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...
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
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?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
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.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
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.
Topic Closed
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic