Can we function with no polititcians?

[InsaneApache]

I think we can.

What says you?

[Kralizec]

Are you serious?

[Viking]

I smell anarchism. Is that excessive -s the ultimate example of rebellion?

[InsaneApache]

Try direct democracy.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Sort of.

But unless you want a really hardcore libertarian government, you would need to find other individuals or institutions to fill their role.

You could cut out parliament and the party system. But then you would just have to leave policy making to the civil service.

Of course if you didn't elect them they wouldn't be accountable to anyone. So then we would start electing these officials, and then they would start campaigning for our votes and divisions would form along partisan lines. And then you've just reinvented politicians all over again.

But you can have direct democracy functioning alongside politicians. For example like they do in Switzerland.

[CountArach]

I like the idea of a world without politicians and instead focussed on direct democracy but in the end all you will end up with are more politicians. They are a necessary evil of a system that has turned being a leader into a job.

[a completely inoffensive name]

LOL Ask us Californian's how direct democracy has worked.

"I LIKE TRAINS." Next Day: UNFUNDED HIGH SPEED RAIL MANDATE PASSED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_1A_(2008)

[Graphic]

LOL Ask us Californian's how direct democracy has worked.

"I LIKE TRAINS." Next Day: UNFUNDED HIGH SPEED RAIL MANDATE PASSED.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_1A_(2008)

I came in here specifically to mention California. It's a sweet idea on paper, but nothing can ever get done that way. Direct democracy may have worked thousands of years ago on a single-city scale (Athens) but its just not practical for a nation of three hundred million.

I could live with politicians if we moved to a system of public campaign finance to severely gimp lobbying, if not destroy it. Then if our politicians want kickbacks for doing corporations' and special interests' bidding, they'll have to become straight-up corrupt like Germans (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-17072479) and have to go to jail.

[Subotan]

No. I'm anticipating InsaneApache mentioning Switzerland next, but Switzerland is really the exception that proves the rule. I'll explain the dynamics of why Switzerland stands apart from other democracies if anyone asks, but it's not relevant to the main argument.

Politicians serve lots of roles that are necessary for democracy. They allow citizens the freedom not to participate in elections, or at least reduce their participation to the level that they want to. Mandating universal direct democracy is exhausting, and would eventually lead to a dictatorship of the most active participants. Politicians are also better at agreeing to disagree and compromising than the average citizen, which is important in democracies. This as well as being better at taking a long term view than the average citizen, and being better at the physical act of governing.

All that aside though, the best argument in favour of politicians is the fact that every democracy on Earth has them. They are products of industrialised democracies, and the relationship is mutually beneficial - democracies gives politicos power, and they provide a whole buffet of uses for the state.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Since you invited debate, IA, one would start with trying to define what you mean by "politicians".

In the direct democracy that others have decided you meant, it is arguable that every citizen must be a politician for government to work. In representative democracies, we devolve those duties to professionals. Even in anarchies, one might argue that there will be politicians, i.e. those who seek to use their skills, intelligence and charisma to influence others to an agenda. More learned colleagues may be able to point to an historical precedent for a society with no politicians, but I cannot think of one. There are several recent examples of political vacuums leading to power being concentrated into hands far more undesirable than corrupt politicians.

I think what we are missing in the current dissatisfaction is actually more widespread than politicians. My own view is that modern societies almost completely lack the concept of public service - not for self-aggrandisement, but a belief that serving the wider good is a fine thing. As societies, we no longer value this devotion as it has no monetary value and so we naturally get individuals standing for government whose motivation is to make as much money as possible in the shortest time. We are no longer interested in complex arguments on complex issues, preferring the immediate soundbite solution. Thus, we get governance based on this rather than nuanced politics where skilled negotiators develop the necessary compromises that all group decisions require.

It's a cliché, but we get the politicians we deserve. In choosing to embrace largely unfettered capitalism because it immediately benefits one generation in the basest manner, we have betrayed the very foundations of the democracies defended in the last world war. Doing away with politicians (or indeed simply moaning about them as if they were the problem) would merely shift the burden of responsibility back onto citizens who have washed their hands of societal obligations in favour of trivial dreams about fame and fortune.

I would agree with Graphic that a very good start would be to impose drastic limits on campaign funding and make political funding entirely from the public purse to ensure that it was ideas, not cash reserves, that tested candidates. I believe severe term limits are required for all political posts. One of my own solutions has long been the idea that parliament should be composed of citizens required (as with jury service) to serve a term. The government (executive) would be elected and professional, but parliament (or Congress) would be composed of citizens who, by and large, did not want to be there, and would thereby cut to the chase in holding the executive to account. They would need to be persuaded. Parliaments would also be called every couple of years rather than sitting virtually permanently, with little better to do than invent new and unneeded laws. I would also require that the professional politicians were paid the average salary of the country they governed, thus incentivised to improve the lot of the common man - and any other sources of income completely banned under pain of imprisonment. This would also encourage people who dedicated themselves to public service rather than a career that would make them rich.

To close, I am reminded of the story that demonstrates what used to pertain in the United Kingdom with regard to politicians. Clement Atlee, one of the most influential Prime Ministers of the UK, having lost the 1951 election, was seen the very next day standing unremarked in a bus queue dampened by the quiet drizzle. The day before, he held the reins of power to the British Empire, having implemented the post-war welfare state and irrevocably changed the lives of all subjects for the better. Today, he stood in the rain in a slightly dishevelled macintosh alongside other commuters. Contract that with Tony Blair sixty years later.

I submit, that contrast is why politicians are now reviled.

[Fragony]

Owwwwww hello BG you have been missed. If you still have the adres of 'not here' say hi to Louis and Adrian, my last mauling has been a while

[lars573]

Since you invited debate, IA, one would start with trying to define what you mean by "politicians".

In the direct democracy that others have decided you meant, it is arguable that every citizen must be a politician for government to work. In representative democracies, we devolve those duties to professionals. Even in anarchies, one might argue that there will be politicians, i.e. those who seek to use their skills, intelligence and charisma to influence others to an agenda. More learned colleagues may be able to point to an historical precedent for a society with no politicians, but I cannot think of one. There are several recent examples of political vacuums leading to power being concentrated into hands far more undesirable than corrupt politicians.

I think what we are missing in the current dissatisfaction is actually more widespread than politicians. My own view is that modern societies almost completely lack the concept of public service - not for self-aggrandisement, but a belief that serving the wider good is a fine thing. As societies, we no longer value this devotion as it has no monetary value and so we naturally get individuals standing for government whose motivation is to make as much money as possible in the shortest time. We are no longer interested in complex arguments on complex issues, preferring the immediate soundbite solution. Thus, we get governance based on this rather than nuanced politics where skilled negotiators develop the necessary compromises that all group decisions require.

It's a cliché, but we get the politicians we deserve. In choosing to embrace largely unfettered capitalism because it immediately benefits one generation in the basest manner, we have betrayed the very foundations of the democracies defended in the last world war. Doing away with politicians (or indeed simply moaning about them as if they were the problem) would merely shift the burden of responsibility back onto citizens who have washed their hands of societal obligations in favour of trivial dreams about fame and fortune.

I would agree with Graphic that a very good start would be to impose drastic limits on campaign funding and make political funding entirely from the public purse to ensure that it was ideas, not cash reserves, that tested candidates. I believe severe term limits are required for all political posts. One of my own solutions has long been the idea that parliament should be composed of citizens required (as with jury service) to serve a term. The government (executive) would be elected and professional, but parliament (or Congress) would be composed of citizens who, by and large, did not want to be there, and would thereby cut to the chase in holding the executive to account. They would need to be persuaded. Parliaments would also be called every couple of years rather than sitting virtually permanently, with little better to do than invent new and unneeded laws. I would also require that the professional politicians were paid the average salary of the country they governed, thus incentivised to improve the lot of the common man - and any other sources of income completely banned under pain of imprisonment. This would also encourage people who dedicated themselves to public service rather than a career that would make them rich.

To close, I am reminded of the story that demonstrates what used to pertain in the United Kingdom with regard to politicians. Clement Atlee, one of the most influential Prime Ministers of the UK, having lost the 1951 election, was seen the very next day standing unremarked in a bus queue dampened by the quiet drizzle. The day before, he held the reins of power to the British Empire, having implemented the post-war welfare state and irrevocably changed the lives of all subjects for the better. Today, he stood in the rain in a slightly dishevelled macintosh alongside other commuters. Contract that with Tony Blair sixty years later.

I submit, that contrast is why politicians are now reviled.
You've stated this several times. And every time I think that this view point was heavily influenced by the so called "greatest generation" of your father (pardon my assumptions about your age) and my grand father. That generation forged by a very harsh economic time, massive global war, and the nuclear fears that followed it. I believe that this generation was an aberration in it's views of civic participation and duty to society. And that this golden time and self less leaders who only took up office for the betterment of all never existed. Or if it did only sporadicly and briefly in very hard times for that society. That indeed all democratic societies the political class ALWAYS did it for either the challenge, the power, or the loot that the executive office or legislative seat offered. Or some combination of both. Really all that's changed is that it's become highly impossible to hide the dirty dealings for very long. That 100 years ago we'd never know how much of a crook Blair or Brown actually was cause people wouldn't take a better offer from the tabloids. To me the only serious degradation in our political discourse is personal loyalties.

I also very much disagree with your stance on how the government should function. I believe that forcing people to serve in a legislature is a recipe for disaster. People who don't want to be in a certain position often as not will not perform well. And indeed it would lead to even more massive corruption and vote buying that currently goes on. Why? You yourself provide the answer. A jury is an audience for a trial, and legal dramas and VERY popular with the general public. However the conducting of government business (as would be seen by a legislature) isn't. That said I do believe that we should try and force the liberal bribery and seat buying that special interest groups have these days. Forcing any who want to fund a campaign for office or seat into a giant pot that any and all can dip into is as decent an idea I could ever come up with. I also disagree with term limits in the extreme. I feel that a much easier to use impeachment/recall system would function just as a well. That is a social contract of being able to sit in that chair so long as you don't peeve enough people at one time.

[gaelic cowboy]

I think what we are missing in the current dissatisfaction is actually more widespread than politicians. My own view is that modern societies almost completely lack the concept of public service - not for self-aggrandisement, but a belief that serving the wider good is a fine thing. As societies, we no longer value this devotion as it has no monetary value and so we naturally get individuals standing for government whose motivation is to make as much money as possible in the shortest time. We are no longer interested in complex arguments on complex issues, preferring the immediate soundbite solution. Thus, we get governance based on this rather than nuanced politics where skilled negotiators develop the necessary compromises that all group decisions require.

Is it not also the case that our politicians are also from a different class and mindset than today.

For example Dev was a teacher of mathematics this is an analytical profession he was defined by his struggle against the empire plus he was obsessed with being independent in every aspect of the states dealings. Later he embodied Ireland as an entity and practically became a walking legend who was more of a myth than a real man this allowed his grandchildren who were and are professional politicians to become used to the idea of power (unlike Dev himself who probably felt it could slip at any time)

It's a cliché, but we get the politicians we deserve. In choosing to embrace largely unfettered capitalism because it immediately benefits one generation in the basest manner, we have betrayed the very foundations of the democracies defended in the last world war. Doing away with politicians (or indeed simply moaning about them as if they were the problem) would merely shift the burden of responsibility back onto citizens who have washed their hands of societal obligations in favour of trivial dreams about fame and fortune.

If we were also to take this idea and add in the development of the professional politician it would fit very neatly indeed, have you ever noticed how many of them are lawyers too I think it's a bit unhealthy (signs on they want austerity and the debts paid back sure lawyers are all about contracts etc etc)


I would agree with Graphic that a very good start would be to impose drastic limits on campaign funding and make political funding entirely from the public purse to ensure that it was ideas, not cash reserves, that tested candidates. I believe severe term limits are required for all political posts.

One problem is party systems might adapt to a revolving chairs game of local, regional, national and even international jobbing and dedicated extremists like todays Sinn Fein are quite capable of getting around finance laws without any need to resort to illegal behaviour. One of our SF TD’s just submitted €50000 of a bill for printing cartridges for two years, I was reliably informed they use it as a way of funding paid volunteers and elections etc etc on the sly.

[gaelic cowboy]

My soultion is an elegant darwinian one we should encourage a caste of politicians to be kindof like the Eloi as long as things are going great we hold off the Morlocks but once things go :daisy: there fed to the mob. Simply inflating bubble economies, buying votes or threats would not work as eventually something would go bang if they wanted to live they would have to do some good

Eventually no doubt after a few rounds of Carosel the politician caste would evolve into summit better.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Even bad politicians will do the right thing if enough people know what the right thing is and yell loud enough. We have no one but ourselves to blame.

[InsaneApache]

Even bad politicians will do the right thing if enough people know what the right thing is and yell loud enough. We have no one but ourselves to blame.

No. Because whoever we elect, the outcome is still the same.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No. Because whoever we elect, the outcome is still the same.

There is more to being a citizen than just voting every few years.

[Strike For The South]

Since you invited debate, IA, one would start with trying to define what you mean by "politicians".

In the direct democracy that others have decided you meant, it is arguable that every citizen must be a politician for government to work. In representative democracies, we devolve those duties to professionals. Even in anarchies, one might argue that there will be politicians, i.e. those who seek to use their skills, intelligence and charisma to influence others to an agenda. More learned colleagues may be able to point to an historical precedent for a society with no politicians, but I cannot think of one. There are several recent examples of political vacuums leading to power being concentrated into hands far more undesirable than corrupt politicians.

I think what we are missing in the current dissatisfaction is actually more widespread than politicians. My own view is that modern societies almost completely lack the concept of public service - not for self-aggrandisement, but a belief that serving the wider good is a fine thing. As societies, we no longer value this devotion as it has no monetary value and so we naturally get individuals standing for government whose motivation is to make as much money as possible in the shortest time. We are no longer interested in complex arguments on complex issues, preferring the immediate soundbite solution. Thus, we get governance based on this rather than nuanced politics where skilled negotiators develop the necessary compromises that all group decisions require.

It's a cliché, but we get the politicians we deserve. In choosing to embrace largely unfettered capitalism because it immediately benefits one generation in the basest manner, we have betrayed the very foundations of the democracies defended in the last world war. Doing away with politicians (or indeed simply moaning about them as if they were the problem) would merely shift the burden of responsibility back onto citizens who have washed their hands of societal obligations in favour of trivial dreams about fame and fortune.

I would agree with Graphic that a very good start would be to impose drastic limits on campaign funding and make political funding entirely from the public purse to ensure that it was ideas, not cash reserves, that tested candidates. I believe severe term limits are required for all political posts. One of my own solutions has long been the idea that parliament should be composed of citizens required (as with jury service) to serve a term. The government (executive) would be elected and professional, but parliament (or Congress) would be composed of citizens who, by and large, did not want to be there, and would thereby cut to the chase in holding the executive to account. They would need to be persuaded. Parliaments would also be called every couple of years rather than sitting virtually permanently, with little better to do than invent new and unneeded laws. I would also require that the professional politicians were paid the average salary of the country they governed, thus incentivised to improve the lot of the common man - and any other sources of income completely banned under pain of imprisonment. This would also encourage people who dedicated themselves to public service rather than a career that would make them rich.

To close, I am reminded of the story that demonstrates what used to pertain in the United Kingdom with regard to politicians. Clement Atlee, one of the most influential Prime Ministers of the UK, having lost the 1951 election, was seen the very next day standing unremarked in a bus queue dampened by the quiet drizzle. The day before, he held the reins of power to the British Empire, having implemented the post-war welfare state and irrevocably changed the lives of all subjects for the better. Today, he stood in the rain in a slightly dishevelled macintosh alongside other commuters. Contract that with Tony Blair sixty years later.

I submit, that contrast is why politicians are now reviled.

This is the correct answer

[lars573]

More like a recipe for even greater corruption and injustice.

[Kralizec]

I would agree with Graphic that a very good start would be to impose drastic limits on campaign funding and make political funding entirely from the public purse to ensure that it was ideas, not cash reserves, that tested candidates. I believe severe term limits are required for all political posts. One of my own solutions has long been the idea that parliament should be composed of citizens required (as with jury service) to serve a term. The government (executive) would be elected and professional, but parliament (or Congress) would be composed of citizens who, by and large, did not want to be there, and would thereby cut to the chase in holding the executive to account. They would need to be persuaded. Parliaments would also be called every couple of years rather than sitting virtually permanently, with little better to do than invent new and unneeded laws. I would also require that the professional politicians were paid the average salary of the country they governed, thus incentivised to improve the lot of the common man - and any other sources of income completely banned under pain of imprisonment. This would also encourage people who dedicated themselves to public service rather than a career that would make them rich.

I rather have the feeling that the vast majority of laws passed actually do serve a real purpose of sorts. The occasional silly laws that make headlines in newspapers and which prompt outrage are usually not that silly when you read more about them (the EU cucumber rules are a case in point) - and the few that are genuinely silly or superfluous are a tiny, tiny minority.

Anyway; the idea of randomly selected representatives is an interesting one, but I can think of several downsides. They lack experience, which in itself may have its advantages, but having them in session for only brief periods of time in which they'll have to do all their work will simply place burdens on them that they're not able to handle. Seasoned politicians are, at the very least, better able to critically examine reports and advice from bureaucrats than the average citizen and make decisions accordingly.
I think that the concept could prove workable in a bicameral legislature, where the other chamber is composed of actual politicians, but not otherwise.

:bow:

[rory_20_uk]

In the UK, the purpose of the House of Lords was oversight of laws. Often there are persons in the House who have real life experience in the field who can provide independent scrutiny. Yes, this use emerged from a very different one historically, but that is its current use.

I would have been a proponent of extending this, with removing all politicians and others such as Clergy and hereditary peers and filling the chamber with diverse specialists, regardless of political affiliation. Most would be at least 50+, and would have had a relatively long career before getting their place in the house due to their excellence in a career. They would probably be the first ones to fully digest and be able to comment on the bills.

The politicians have decided to do the opposite and have decided to try to make the second chamber less skilled and more compliant with a reduced number and directly elected officials.

~:smoking:

[ICantSpellDawg]

I don't mind abandoning the current system for a revised system, but - who determines the agenda, the wording of bills, etc? That's what politicians and their aides do. Sure, local councils could vote on it, but what they are voting on would need to be administered in some way.

Direct democracy isn't a great idea because most people are complete fools. We hire representatives to study and master the issues of the day and make decisions in our best interests. Devolution using current communication technology is a good idea, but that doesn't have to mean that everyone votes on every issue. We are a specialized society for a reason.

[Vladimir]

Owwwwww hello BG you have been missed. If you still have the adres of 'not here' say hi to Louis and Adrian, my last mauling has been a while

OMG how did I miss it?!? :sweetheart:

[HoreTore]

Try direct democracy.

Direct democracy is one of the forms of "government" of an anarchist utopia.

Anyway, direct democracy is among the lowest forms of democracy. It is tyranny of the majority on a case by case basis, which is utterly unworkable and undesirable. The glory of democracy is its ability to compromise, which a representative democracy does well.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You've stated this several times. And every time I think that this view point was heavily influenced by the so called "greatest generation" of your father (pardon my assumptions about your age) and my grand father. That generation forged by a very harsh economic time, massive global war, and the nuclear fears that followed it. I believe that this generation was an aberration in it's views of civic participation and duty to society. And that this golden time and self less leaders who only took up office for the betterment of all never existed. Or if it did only sporadicly and briefly in very hard times for that society. That indeed all democratic societies the political class ALWAYS did it for either the challenge, the power, or the loot that the executive office or legislative seat offered. Or some combination of both. Really all that's changed is that it's become highly impossible to hide the dirty dealings for very long. That 100 years ago we'd never know how much of a crook Blair or Brown actually was cause people wouldn't take a better offer from the tabloids. To me the only serious degradation in our political discourse is personal loyalties.

That's a fair rebuttal, although as you note, there have been generations (few and far between, I'll grant) that had the sense of civic duty I am espousing. My argument is that if our representative democracies are to survive in the future - which you rightly note, is one of increased scrutiny - then representatives must re-discover or adopt a position whereby civic duty and responsibility outweigh the opportunity for corruption. In my view, without such a change, voters become ever more disenchanted and therefore disenfranchised. The oligarchies we see nowadays take less and less interest in the opinions of the common person, keeping them suitably anaesthetised with mindless entertainments. I consider that we are a long way down that path already, and that political activism in developed democracies is fracturing and being marginalised. Perhaps democracy can only truly be refreshed in dangerous times?


I also very much disagree with your stance on how the government should function. I believe that forcing people to serve in a legislature is a recipe for disaster. People who don't want to be in a certain position often as not will not perform well. And indeed it would lead to even more massive corruption and vote buying that currently goes on. Why? You yourself provide the answer. A jury is an audience for a trial, and legal dramas and VERY popular with the general public. However the conducting of government business (as would be seen by a legislature) isn't. That said I do believe that we should try and force the liberal bribery and seat buying that special interest groups have these days. Forcing any who want to fund a campaign for office or seat into a giant pot that any and all can dip into is as decent an idea I could ever come up with. I also disagree with term limits in the extreme. I feel that a much easier to use impeachment/recall system would function just as a well. That is a social contract of being able to sit in that chair so long as you don't peeve enough people at one time.

Again, you make good points but from a fairly cynical position towards people's willingness to participate in political activity. It may well be that you are proven right.

I believe that with good education (it is no coincidence to me that western leaders have spent much of the post-war years undermining real, discursive and analytical educational skills in favour of results-based, coached benchmarks) and civic duty - the concept, appreciated by others of society as a virtue worth celebrating in ways other than pecuniary, that devoting time and energy to the betterment of that society is a responsibility all citizens should embrace - our democracies could be revitalised. I really don't see how representative democracy will survive long without such commitments. This then, draws me onto another view, that citizenship and the related voting power is actually something to be earned, not universally granted at an arbitrary age of majority.

I note your opinions on term limits. My own view is that there is overwhelming evidence that politicians who stay in power much longer than six or seven years go barking mad, developing a sense of entitlement, just as it is rarely healthy for a party in government to last much longer than ten years without a refresh. Impeachment should be reserved for punishing wrongdoing, not as a method of removing old politicians. The remedy for that is competitive seats, where the incumbent has to work damn hard to ensure re-election (and to me, can only expect to represent that seat for a limited term).

And after all my verbiage, a completely inoffensive name puts it quite succinctly:


There is more to being a citizen than just voting every few years. :bow:

[lars573]

That's a fair rebuttal, although as you note, there have been generations (few and far between, I'll grant) that had the sense of civic duty I am espousing. My argument is that if our representative democracies are to survive in the future - which you rightly note, is one of increased scrutiny - then representatives must re-discover or adopt a position whereby civic duty and responsibility outweigh the opportunity for corruption. In my view, without such a change, voters become ever more disenchanted and therefore disenfranchised. The oligarchies we see nowadays take less and less interest in the opinions of the common person, keeping them suitably anaesthetised with mindless entertainments. I consider that we are a long way down that path already, and that political activism in developed democracies is fracturing and being marginalised. Perhaps democracy can only truly be refreshed in dangerous times?
Any form of government change can only happen in dangerous times. I once said to someone frustrated at the bureaucracy of getting ones drivers license renewed on your birthday, that when large groups of people have a similar problem at the same time you get things like revolutions. See the Arab spring. Truth is I've seen in my life that oligarchies are the natural state of human governance. No matter what form a state is founded on in the fullness of time it will tend toward oligarchy. Our modern representative democracies just make that slide easier. Another thing I've seen is that while the life of a man is linear, the live of civilization is cyclical. And perhaps right now were in a place of complacent bred tyranny of the political class. And that it could change if things get really bad.




Again, you make good points but from a fairly cynical position towards people's willingness to participate in political activity. It may well be that you are proven right.
When dealing with the philosophical constructs of men, the more cynical (or more properly realistic) you are the better.


I believe that with good education (it is no coincidence to me that western leaders have spent much of the post-war years undermining real, discursive and analytical educational skills in favour of results-based, coached benchmarks) and civic duty - the concept, appreciated by others of society as a virtue worth celebrating in ways other than pecuniary, that devoting time and energy to the betterment of that society is a responsibility all citizens should embrace - our democracies could be revitalised. I really don't see how representative democracy will survive long without such commitments. This then, draws me onto another view, that citizenship and the related voting power is actually something to be earned, not universally granted at an arbitrary age of majority.
I've read Starship troopers that sort of system would end up with the same sort of oligarchy. Just with the uncivic minded de-jure left out, as opposed to de-facto left out as we have now. This sort of system you suggest is exactly what Heinlein lays out in that novel, who was an english lit. educated ex-military man approaching middle age when he wrote it, coincidence? Where the voting franchise is only open to those who do a term of federal service. After reading it I couldn't see how this would make better voters. As those willing to do the service requirement would have been the ones who voted under our systems now.


I note your opinions on term limits. My own view is that there is overwhelming evidence that politicians who stay in power much longer than six or seven years go barking mad, developing a sense of entitlement, just as it is rarely healthy for a party in government to last much longer than ten years without a refresh. Impeachment should be reserved for punishing wrongdoing, not as a method of removing old politicians. The remedy for that is competitive seats, where the incumbent has to work damn hard to ensure re-election (and to me, can only expect to represent that seat for a limited term).
I might have been a little unclear. I think the Athenian system of de-electing an archon is something that might be better able to keep officials on their toes. But Athenians did that every year. And in the modern state is too big for that sort of annual expenditure, although digital technology might make it more feasible. I also think a major problem with our modern democracies is that all our political class operators are as short sighted and self serving because they have to face the voters so frequently. They have 48 months to get all the gravy they can. If they, or their peers, don't mess up too badly they could get another 48 months. That kind of desperate insecurity is a great place for someone who is a little flexible already to go full Corleone. So if you want less corruption and term limits, terms would have to be increased. To 5 years at least, 6-8 ideally.


And after all my verbiage, a completely inoffensive name puts it quite succinctly:

:bow:
And 90% of people are not willing to do more than that. I'm not.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So if you want less corruption and term limits, terms would have to be increased. To 5 years at least, 6-8 ideally.
With this being said, I support term limits on US Senators, but not Congressmen. The 2 year votes for the House is specifically meant for rapid changes of the whims of the people. There are benefits to this that I don't think people take account of.



And 90% of people are not willing to do more than that. I'm not.
But this not a consequence of human nature, but of culture.

Once, US voter participation hovered around the 80% mark, today it hovers around 50%.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/35/Voter_turnout.png

Was the free silver debate really any more important than the issues of today? Or did the culture instill civil duty within everyone better?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Was the free silver debate really any more important than the issues of today? Or did the culture instill civil duty within everyone better?

It was legal to bribe people with free booze

[a completely inoffensive name]

It was legal to bribe people with free booze

There was a lot of corruption, but was an additional 35% of the country being bribed into voting by Boss Tweed that otherwise wouldn't have voted?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

There was a lot of corruption, but was an additional 35% of the country being bribed into voting by Boss Tweed that otherwise wouldn't have voted?

Maybe. The voting age was also 21, and iirc 18 year olds hardly vote. Anyway, I'm not dismissing the idea, but it would be really difficult to untangle...

I wouldn't equate voting with doing your civic duty either.

[Montmorency]

I wouldn't equate voting with doing your civic duty either.

Well, neither would ACIN.


There is more to being a citizen than just voting every few years.

See?


And 90% of people are not willing to do more than that. I'm not.


Once, US voter participation hovered around the 80% mark, today it hovers around 50%. Was the free silver debate really any more important than the issues of today? Or did the culture instill civil duty within everyone better?

Oh...

:disappointed:

[a completely inoffensive name]

I don't see the contradiction in what I said. Voting is part of your civic duty, but as I said there is a lot more to it than that.

I am simply using voter participation as a signal that perhaps civic duty in general is not as strong as it once was.

Please, please don't misinterpret me about this. I don't want you guys to think I am dumb. :((((

If there were charts on average volunteer rates for community events, religious activities etc....These might be other sources of data to which determine how civic virtue in America has changed.

EDIT: Also, the questions were hypothetical, not my official stance. I wanted someone to argue why free silver was more important to the US than abortion ever will.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Oh no. I just meant that I wouldn't take greater voter participation to mean greater civic duty. I am very interested in why the rates were higher...but it may just have been that political machines were more powerful and less scrupulous, or some other explanation...

[Beskar]

I am surprised no Belgians have replied to this topic. They have been functioning without "politicians" for a good while. Solely ran by the civil service doing their duties whilst politicians are never forming any sort of stable coalition.

[Vladimir]

I am surprised no Belgians have replied to this topic. They have been functioning without "politicians" for a good while. Solely ran by the civil service doing their duties whilst politicians are never forming any sort of stable coalition.

Isn't that similar to saying Washington DC functions without politicians?

[InsaneApache]

Isn't that similar to saying Washington DC functions without politicians?

Not really. It would be like Washington DC with no government.

[Vladimir]

DC doesn't really have a government. Congress has a lot of control of governance.

Everyone has politicians, even the military. Once someone becomes a general they cease being a soldier and become politicians out of necessity.

[Subotan]

Once, US voter participation hovered around the 80% mark, today it hovers around 50%.


Turnout has dropped in all Western democracies. Nobody knows why.

[InsaneApache]

Turnout has dropped in all Western democracies. Nobody knows why.

Because the ones who stand for election do not reflect the attitudes of the electorate.

[Visor]

Compulsory voting seems to get numbers up. :tongue:

[gaelic cowboy]

Turnout has dropped in all Western democracies. Nobody knows why.



People are cynical of the motives behind any run for political office even a first timer independent.

I bet people feel like there getting on without politicians because many of the services they use feel like there not provided by government, why bother voting "they never do nothing for me" as he sits in a privately paid for hospital bed in a public paid for hospital.

Much of the stuff we have can only function when somehow regulated by politicians (either badly or well) were just good at ignoring where our privately consumed services come from.

[CountArach]

Turnout has dropped in all Western democracies. Nobody knows why.
I'm guessing that a lot of it has to do with the nature of the media. We are told day-in and day-out that we are governed by crooks and that the opposition parties are no better. So that is the point in voting? Further, the entire world is presented as a cold, depressing place with bad things occurring all over the world, so what is the point in doing anything about it if our human nature is just going to make us do it again? Far easier to sit at home on the lounge.

But yes... compulsory voting is something I truly like about our democracy.

[gaelic cowboy]

There is a pub I know with a mirror that has a bullet hole from the tans in it above the bar just to set the scene, mainly popular with older farming bachelors they wear long black overcoats and flat tweed caps smoke sweet afton or players navy cut.(it's not a place you hunt for chicks in)

These men cried like babies the day Dev died when it was announced on the news, the younger more cynical student types were more annoyed he had died on the weekend so they wouldnt get a day off college.(course these student types were all pretty much flirting with maoism in college anyway)



It does not take long for people to forget why they want or need the vote.

[rory_20_uk]

Link (http://www.economist.com/node/21549963?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/marioputonyourtoga)

Yes, we can function with no politicians... but the method to find their replacements is tough. Looks like Italy has managed just that. The main reason for the whoe democracy show is so the polis feels at some level that they are responsible - or at the very least, tried to vote for the other guy.

~:smoking: