Let's reinvent the system

[Worldquest]

For whoever might be interested-

I invite you to try this with me, but you have to take it seriously, and focus mainly on the positives for now :

Theoretically, let's reinvent the system. Let's see if we can devise a new system, whereby the people have as much say as possible in their affairs. We'll focus on the positives, while taking note of possible problems/ issues as we go along. Then, when we have a rough overall idea, we'll address the issues, and fine tune our system. The idea is to see how realistic iand workable it would be. I'll start with these suggestions, go ahead and add your own and dispute mine (but without being too negative about them, for the time being) :

- The people propose laws
- The people directly vote on laws
- No politicians
- No political parties
- Only representatives of the people whose job it is to merely express the needs and wishes of the people in their region

 

[MRaverz]

- You say no politicians, but yes to regional representatives.
So you propose an MP without power to vote on laws, but retaining the ability to debate and question in parliament? Just clarifying that.
Additionally, I propose that a region can have more than one representative - to avoid someone getting in on 40% of the votes.

- People vote on the laws.
Two issues here, one - that's a lot of voting, two - people could be influenced by the media (ie. Daily Mail).

- People suggest the laws.
I like this idea, and it's similar to Clegg's 'you tell us the laws you want abolished' idea. But wouldn't there be a lot of bureaucracy due to processing requests?

- No Political Parties
Not sure about this one, I think I can see where you're going with it though.

I'm all for proportional representation in as many places as possible. Plus, I think that compulsory voting (with the addition of an 'abstain' option) would help to bring about true PR. Although, this would probably not be necessary as when the public receives more power to change things - they tend to vote more anyway.

 

[Worldquest]

MRaverz -



I'll refine / express better my suggestions based on what you've said :

- Regional representatives (more than one? Yes why not) with (by virtue of being citizens like everyone else) the power to propose and vote on laws, but no more power. Their voting and proposing power would be in their capacity as a citizen. These are not MPs. They don't make decisions on behalf of the people, they merely discuss the needs and wishes of the people, in order to create an overview of the entire country's needs and wishes, and to find possible issues / problems, and to present them back to the people, who will then be free to propose changes if they wish, but at least they are made aware of the overview, this way they can make informed decisions

- People propose laws. A lot of beurocracy? Well don't we have that already? I suppose there would be beurocracy but at least the people would be directly involved

- People vote on laws directly. They could be influenced by the media, of course, but so be it. What do you think? Any refinements?

- No political parties. They would simply be unnecessary. That's not to say that you couldn't have organisations which stand for certain things, but at the end of the day they can only express themselves and possibly influence, which is fine. The people would make the final decision in any case

I don't agree with compulsory voting. I believe in complete freedom and responsibility for making or not making a decision. Is there any room for compromise?

Another suggestion : A country wide constitution based on certain values, one of the main ones being freedom. Each region would be free to make laws for themselves, but they would have to not violate the constitution, ie it would be their regional interpretation / practise of the constitution.

 

[ExplorerAtHeart]

Some sort of advanced electronic(internet) voting system where all issues are voted on daily be the citizens who want to participate? Would have to find a way to prevent fraud and cheating.

ie a national congress where all people can be congressmen.

 

[Worldquest]

Some sort of advanced electronic(internet) voting system where all issues are voted on daily be the citizens who want to participate? Would have to find a way to prevent fraud and cheating.

ie a national congress where all people can be congressmen.

Yes, why not use technology. I don't know what you mean by congressman, is that like an MP? I think it should be about representation, not making decisions on behalf of people. So instead of running for ofice, you are already "in office" by virtue of being a citizen. What do you think?

 

[ExplorerAtHeart]

MP? Try not to use an acronym the first time something is mentioned. I don't know what MP is.

Congressman? I was just using an example, everyone would vote as if they were a congressman, ie the ones in US who supposedly vote on behalf of the people.

 

[MRaverz]

Only problem with the internet idea is the servers crashing, and the potential for hackers to get in and mess things up.

On political parties, I suppose a refinement to single-issue or single-policy parties would work as a means of protesting for a certain issue. This would simply stem from current single-issue groups, so no problems there.

I feel that if you're going to have local representatives, they should focus on local issues. Issues for a country as a whole, should be dealt with by the people as a whole. Reps simply bring forward issues in parliament, as they do now.

Only alteration to the media influence would be preventing them from putting blatant lies into their content - but censorship isn't the right way to go.

 

[Worldquest]

Only problem with the internet idea is the servers crashing, and the potential for hackers to get in and mess things up.

On political parties, I suppose a refinement to single-issue or single-policy parties would work as a means of protesting for a certain issue. This would simply stem from current single-issue groups, so no problems there.

I feel that if you're going to have local representatives, they should focus on local issues. Issues for a country as a whole, should be dealt with by the people as a whole. Reps simply bring forward issues in parliament, as they do now.

Only alteration to the media influence would be preventing them from putting blatant lies into their content - but censorship isn't the right way to go.

The representatives for the regions could simply tell the "parliament' (or whatever it would be called) what's going on in their region. They would discuss their issues, as well as national issues, and report back to be the people so they know what's going on across the country as well as in their own region. The citizens of the regions would then be informed enough to propose laws, that's if they want to of course, amendments or whatever, even just changes in infrastructure, which affect either their region, or affect theirs and another region. The idea is for everyone to know where they stand. And in principle, any citizen could sit in and observe what the parliament discusses, and to an extent, say their bit. But no decisions are being made in parliament, it's just information.

Who decides what is a blatant lie? How about, instead of censoring the media, just make it equally easy for everyone to promote their views. That way, whoever feels that someone is spreading incorrect info, they can counter it, and a debate (at least in people's minds) can take place.

What about the economy? I think that anyone should be free to create their own currency. I'll leave you to take it from there, or suggest something else.

 

[Lallapalalable]

Im guessing that you, Worldquest, are between 16 and 20, and have recently gotten yourself personally involved in politics (like, within the past two years or so). Im not sure where you come from, US or Europe (I would put money on the US), but youll probably see in a short while that even the most motivated individuals, with or without popular support, will have nearly no influence on actual policy changes regarding the structure of the system. Even if you do come up with the greatest, near utopian political system the world will ever know, you better prepare for one hell of a fight. For one, there are those whose jobs would be lost (who currently are in power) who would not let any sort of representative free system ever exist in their lives without a fight. Second, you would almost have to build from the ground up, which on a scale you are considering would take decades to even implement, let alone finding and fixing all the conceptual problems not evident on paper. So take a lesson from the american revolution and framing of the constitution (which wasnt even the first choice for the new government): It will be long, bloody, and difficult.

Besides, I think the representative system is pretty good. What needs to change for progression is how they make their decisions in congress/parliament. Anyone with even an ounce of observation skills know they say one thing campaigning then another when the decision is to be made. I think there should be some sort of contract that would oblige them to vote as they campaigned, unless they can provide a good argument as to why they have changed their minds (and the voters will then decide if a shift is acceptable. If not, too bad).

The media should give equal coverage to every candidate, no taking sides to influence voter choice (Fox News...not that they are good at it)

Voter registration should be at regulated sites/channels (my friend went to rock the vote, but he registered republican and never received a card)

campaigning should have expense caps, so a relatively poor guy with a masters in political science has an equal chance of getting attention as a millionaire who only has a BA in theatre (its an extreme, nonprecidented case, and only an example)

Overall, I think the system works pretty well. It may not be functional on the scale it now has to deal with (thanks to exploding populations and new technologies), but putting in a new carborator is usually better than buying a whole new car.

 

[nasher168]

MP? Try not to use an acronym the first time something is mentioned. I don't know what MP is.

An MP is a Member of Parliament in the UK and other countries. Similar to a US Congressman in some ways, but depending on the country there are numerous very important differences.

 

[Ozymandyus]

This sort of silly reinvention of social systems are always so narrowly defined and shortsighted that there is no point in discussing it. Let's say we DID institute such a system... We would just have to reinvent the wheel with all of the current things that are done by government. The truth is no matter how you feel about government you are benefitting from the extraordinarily stable societies that have been built and maintained by the current governments. We could not possibly deal with the number of votes we would have to be educated on and make every day, and most people that have jobs would be too busy to vote and not represented, or would simply vote along with whatever their media outlet of choice told them to do: reinventing political parties in the worst possible way.

The whole idea is incredibly unrealistic and shortsighted. You would probably end up with something even worse than what we have now, and if you were lucky you would just spend years remaking almost exactly what we already have.

 

[Baranduin]

Ok, let's see:

- The people directly vote on laws

Some laws would require specialized knowledge that not everyone can have. I'm thinking, for instance, in substance control, and in healthcare. For the sake of your society, some laws should be voted only by people with the necessary preparation to fully understand the consequences. In other case, you risk your society to die of measles because of vaccine fearmongers (no, parents have proved themselves not to be worth of trust in this issue, and it's not just personal election as you are risking other people's babies).

- No political parties

This:

We could not possibly deal with the number of votes we would have to be educated on and make every day, and most people that have jobs would be too busy to vote and not represented,

Political parties could make policy - a template for your answers. You could vote for their full program, or change the points you disagree with, or make a completely independent vote.

Political groups would be going to appear, you like it or not, so better have them explicit and controlled than in the underground (and that, I think, covers the Ozymandyus' last point in that sentence).

The whole idea is incredibly unrealistic and shortsighted. You would probably end up with something even worse than what we have now, and if you were lucky you would just spend years remaking almost exactly what we already have.

Take it as a thought experiment, Ozymandyus. Perhaps we can write a sci-fi screenplay with it


Besides that, I'm curious, how would you reinvent the judiciary system? Also regional level, or there'd be a Constitutional for that? How would you ensure that a province is not going to go rogue and start to implement polices against the Constitution?

 

[Ozymandyus]

If I had to reinvent the system, I would pretty much set it up Exactly as it is now. The basics of it anyway. I would certainly change political parties, but that can be changed without any sort of reinvention. There's plenty of other stuff I would change too, but again, it can be changed under the current system already. That is the beauty of what we already have: it was built to be flexible.

We COULD have people vote on almost every issue without needing to tear everything down and rebuild it - all you would have to do is get something on the ballot to establish a way of voting on individual issues. It wouldn't be easy, and it probably wouldn't pass, because I think most people realize its a bad idea.

 

[Worldquest]

Baranduin -

Yes I agree, of course, that some things aren't common knowledge (ie a lot of science, technology, medicine etc etc etc), and no, it wouldn't be practical for the general public to make certain decisions without this knowledge. In such cases maybe you could have a procedure whereby those who are qualified can present their views, and then the public can decide, and perhaps the votes of those with the knowledge could carry more weight. It's just an idea. Or alternatively, it could be as you say, where only those with the knowledge could vote. I'm undecided as to which would be best, but I'm sure sensible people can come up with some kind of solution for such instances.

I don't believe in political parties (ie decision makers on behalf of the people), although I have no problem with organisations campaigning to influence people to vote a certain way on issues. And that includes all kinds of organizations, however sinister their views. As long as everyone has the means to make their views known, and as long as each individual makes the choice themselves at the end of the day, that's what's important.

The judiciary system...judges (voted in by the people) would decide if proposed laws are constitutional or not (were they to be implemented), and if they are, they would give the go ahead for the people to vote on them. And when the people have voted, they would look at the result (which could be a compromise rather than a straight yes or no) to make sure that is is fair, and practical, and constitutional. Id it is, they would then declare it to be law.

A variation of the constitution for the regions? Maybe small changes. Maybe parts of the constitution could be set in stone and others could be amendable to an extent.

If a region tried to implement policies that go against the constitution, they would be kicked out of the confederation, with the option to return, if they keep to the constitution. If they keep violating it, the rest of the country could vote on whether or not to let them return at all.

 

[Aught3]

How are you going to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority in your system?

 

[Worldquest]

How are you going to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority in your system?

What tyranny?

 

[Baranduin]

How are you going to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority in your system?

What tyranny?

Tyrannies like this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minaret_controversy_in_Switzerland

 

[Worldquest]

No lo entiendo, Baranduin. Where's the tyranny? Some people want something built, others don't. What's the issue?

In the system that I'm proposing :

- Decisions and laws are proposed by the people

- The judiciary decides if it's within the constitution, were it to be implemented (the constitution would be based on certain values, one of the main ones being freedom). It would also decide, in conjunction with the people as necessary, who would be entitled to vote, based on who it would affect and perhaps other practical factors

- The people vote, not necessarily a straight yes or no, but maybe on a scale of 1-5

- A suitable compromise would be devised

- Decision gets made


I'm not exactly sure what the problem is.

 

[Aught3]

How are you going to protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority in your system?

What tyranny?

A tyranny of the majority, have you not heard the term before?

Good example Baraduin

 

[Baranduin]

Just an afterthought.

You've expressed in many times that individuals are responsible for what happens to them, so I don't know if you've thought about single mothers, underaged orphans, unemployed people, and other sectors of the society that currently depend on societal care (which in your tax-free system wouldn't virtually exist, relying in charities that evidence is is not enough). Which polices would you take about those minorities? A mother divided between working or raising her child/ren - she could have aborted, but perhaps her husband died once the baby was born -; an orphan that cannot possibly work and get a live, or just people that has no work currently - they're looking for it, not leeching the system -, but a family to feed in the meantime.

I'm not sure your standing about gay marriage, but that's another good example of "tyranny of the majority".

I didn't bring those issues because of your past statements about your philosophy, but could be that you don't see an issue in the Switzerland controversy either.

Edit: ok, you don't understand. Imagine that christian/catholic churches weren't allowed to have crosses displayed, or that parades and other religious public displays that you called "interesting, fun, quirky" were forbidden, and so on. Well, that's the problem: Muslims are not allowed to build towers in their religious centers because of the islamophobia of a christian majority. How do you protect Muslims, or christians, or atheists, or progressives, or men, or women, or gay, or hetero, or whatever, from indirect discrimination. That's not self-evident and foreseeable.

Edit2: Thanks, Aught3